Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adjust Platform release process for LTS regular release cadence #176

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 8, 2025

Conversation

gsmet
Copy link
Member

@gsmet gsmet commented Jan 8, 2025

Chances are we will have to tune things a lot, thus why I decided to not be smart by combining this with existing corner cases.

So the idea here is that for LTS micro versions, we will also have to wait a week between core and platform (at least for now - things might be refined along the way, we will adjust accordingly).

This doesn't really change the scripts or anything, just the instructions you have to follow for the Platform step (it's the only one that still requires manual operations).

@gsmet gsmet requested a review from jmartisk January 8, 2025 12:50
Comment on lines -105 to -113
@JsonIgnore
public boolean isFirstMicroMaintenanceRelease() {
if (version == null) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Unable to know if the version is the first micro maintenance at this stage");
}

return Versions.isFirstMicroMaintenanceRelease(version);
}

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This one was unused so I thought I might as well remove it.

public class ReleaseInformationTest {

@ParameterizedTest
// version,branch,qualifier,firstFinal,expectedResult
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm trying to wrap my head around what this firstFinal means. IIUC, it means that either the version ends with .0, or it ends with .1 but there is no corresponding .0 (because the original release failed or something)?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this would deserve a (JavaDoc) comment in the ReleaseInformation class

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes exactly.

Fair point about needing more Javadoc, I'll do that in another PR.

Chances are we will have to tune things a lot, thus why I decided to not
be smart by combining this with existing corner cases.
@gsmet gsmet force-pushed the new-lts-release-process branch from 7201f0d to d6abd4d Compare January 8, 2025 13:41
@gsmet gsmet merged commit e66df4d into quarkusio:main Jan 8, 2025
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants