model-registry icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
model-registry copied to clipboard

small change proposal for Release process/pypi version

Open tarilabs opened this issue 1 year ago • 5 comments

Collected the experience from the previous periodic releases of Model Registry so far: https://github.com/kubeflow/model-registry/releases

the following small changes are being proposed, to go into effect at the next feasible periodic release:

What is NOT changing

  • Model Registry is still Alpha:
  • dev workflow still refer to main branch,
    • any PR will be opened targeting main default branch
  • there is no "support requirement" for "release branches", likewise of Kubeflow versioning scheme: the release branches are introduced to allow image version "pinning" or any other chore commit required on the repo before a given Alpha release

Why these changes

These changes are being proposed for the following reasons:

  • introduce image version "pinning" in the manifest, and potentially later any other "pinning" requirements in a dedicated branch
  • make it easier to sync accordingly to KF/manifests repo
  • lower friction when browsing pypi, and when installing from pypi

don't forget to comment or emoji react for your thoughts! (thanks @Al-Pragliola for the 👀 )

tarilabs avatar Sep 30 '24 11:09 tarilabs

+1 Having a brach for the release will also provide us to release z stream release from the branch created to cover any CVEs or critical bugs.

rareddy avatar Oct 01 '24 03:10 rareddy

@kubeflow/release-team @rimolive during last KF biweekly meeting 2024-09-30, a question was raised whether we "have to" keep the -alpha suffix also for the container images: https://hub.docker.com/r/kubeflow/model-registry/tags?name=v0

after all, they start with v0. and we document we're in Kubeflow Alpha designation per resources above:

what are your thoughts, please?

tarilabs avatar Oct 01 '24 04:10 tarilabs

Historically, component owners in past Kubeflow releases used both ways. The Katib team used not only the -alpha suffix but also what I believe is the commit hash that image was built into.

On the other hand, Pipelines team decided on a different approach by just tagging images with their respective version without include alpha or beta in the image tag.

I think the most important action here is how the message about the alpha status for Model Registry is clear and transparent to the users. We've been talking about the alpha status in many community meetings, we wrote a blog post, and the documentation makes it clear that MR is still under alpha.

That said, I'm okay to just use the version without the -alpha suffix in the image tags since the message here is clear: We'll reach final or GA only when image tags reach 1.0.0.

rimolive avatar Oct 01 '24 10:10 rimolive

+1 for that. This will become useful for CVEs and backporting of critical issues.

ederign avatar Oct 04 '24 17:10 ederign

with 0.2.8-alpha, I've seized the chance to test the release branch strategy from the original https://github.com/kubeflow/model-registry/issues/435#issue-2556426644

  • release: https://github.com/kubeflow/model-registry/releases/tag/v0.2.8-alpha
  • release branch: https://github.com/kubeflow/model-registry/tree/release/v0.2.8-alpha
  • tag is on the release branch.

tarilabs avatar Oct 05 '24 14:10 tarilabs

with 0.2.9, I've seized the chance to further progress on the release branch strategy from the original https://github.com/kubeflow/model-registry/issues/435#issue-2556426644

tarilabs avatar Oct 22 '24 09:10 tarilabs

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

github-actions[bot] avatar Jan 21 '25 04:01 github-actions[bot]

This issue has been automatically closed because it has not had recent activity. Please comment "/reopen" to reopen it.

github-actions[bot] avatar Feb 10 '25 04:02 github-actions[bot]