Should we have freeze period on release process?

[magicmatatjahu]

In the Which tools wants to stay up to date with the spec release? discussion, I suggested that we should have a "freeze period" in the release process to allow us to update tooling on time. Comment below:

https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/issues/662#issuecomment-987862305

One of the problems that I also see in updating tools is the situation that occurred in the previous release. On the same day as the tools were updated we also merged changes in spec/json-schemas/parser on the release branch - this caused situations when e.g. people needed to know about the changes but did not have a "pre-release", which could be tested in tools. We needed some kind of freeze period in which we have the spec/json-schemas/parser merged (of course on the pre-release branch) and people can use them in the tools, e.g. 1-2 weeks. We are waiting for the tools update and then we do a full spec and tools release. What do you think?

So it's a question: is a valid in our case to have a freeze period? If yes, how long? For minor changes 1-2 weeks, for major 1-2 months, or ever more? What do you think?

cc @derberg @fmvilas @jonaslagoni @smoya

[jonaslagoni]

Because we have such a huge focus on tooling, I think it makes sense.

I suggest we keep the freeze period consistent as everyone knows exactly what to expect. Because we need to give tooling developers adequate time to adapt, I feel like 1 month is the way to go.

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity :sleeping:

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience :heart:

[derberg]

How is it going with the freeze period? 😆

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity :sleeping:

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience :heart:

[magicmatatjahu]

@derberg We just tested it on the example of this issue 🤣 Let others comment, I think that for 3.0.0 we should have some month two of such period.

cc @derberg @fmvilas @jonaslagoni @smoya @dalelane

[jonaslagoni]

For 3.0.0 I would suggest we try with a 1-month buffer, meaning if we want to release it in Januar, we stop adding new changes to the spec in December 🙂 That way it's a start, and we can evaluate in retrospect how it went.

Adding it as a suggestion for tomorrow's 3.0.0 meeting: https://github.com/asyncapi/community/issues/453

[fmvilas]

I would actually suggest we give it 3 months. It's going to be a huge change 😅

[jonaslagoni]

I would actually suggest we give it 3 months. It's going to be a huge change 😅

Well, yes that is true, but remember parser should already be up to date before the freeze period, and those who worked on the spec that also works on tooling, have their hands free as no further changes are happening from that front. So I actually don't think it's that bad 😄

But, I don't mind it being 3 months, it gives more time to nail the implementation of course it gives those who don't work full time on it time to adjust.

[smoya]

I would actually suggest we give it 3 months. It's going to be a huge change 😅

+1.

EDIT: I also +1 what @dalelane says below:

For v3, and major versions in general, I agree - a few months is sensible. For minor versions, it feels less urgent to me though

[dalelane]

For v3, and major versions in general, I agree - a few months is sensible. For minor versions, it feels less urgent to me though

[github-actions[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity :sleeping:

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience :heart: