meta: Add RELEASE.md #3224
meta: Add RELEASE.md #3224
Conversation
RELEASE.md
Outdated
| 5. **Day 14:** Community announcement and gradual provisioners upgrade. | ||
| 6. **Day 16:** Deploy `rusk-vX.Y.Z` to **Mainnet**. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't "provisioner upgrade" the same of "deploy to mainnet"?
What's the difference?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't "provisioner upgrade" the same of "deploy to mainnet"?
What's the difference?
People already deploying the binary, but thinking about it it doesn't make a whole lot of sense since we'll specify an upgrade is active after a given block height into the future anyway if it's a protocol change. Maybe it makes sense to specify a minimum amount of time/blocks a protocol change needs to be activated.
In terms of the dates mention, they're just examples. Feel free to suggest a different time frame.
HDauven
requested review from
kieranhall,
welf,
ascartabelli,
miloszm,
fed-franz,
nortonandreev,
Daksh14,
moCello,
herr-seppia and
Neotamandua
| - Summary of changes. | ||
| - Migration steps (if applicable). | ||
| - Framework upgrade details. | ||
| - **Changelog Management:** Use automated changelog generation from PR labels (`breaking-change`, `enhancement`, `bug-fix`). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just a note – for Web Apps, @kieranhall has investigated automated changelog generation some time ago. However, seems like we couldn't find a solution that suits our needs, given the current way we do the change log.
We still quite often have merge conflicts, related to the changelog, so I am not against an automated solution. But we might need to discuss with the rest of the tech team and see if we can do something similar to what others are doing, so to integrate such solution for us too.
| - **Policy:** Updated weekly, deploying directly to the Devnet environment. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Release Branches (`rusk-release-vX.Y`) | ||
| - **Purpose:** Stable releases for mainnet or testnet deployments. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am a bit confused, especially with the 7. Environment Versioning Policy stating that testnet is beta (well, I think it should be RC, see the comments there).
If so, testnet should be for the rc branches, while the mainnet for the stable branches (rusk-release-vX.Y) only, no?
HDauven
force-pushed
the
add-release-process
branch
from
7fe9be2 to
95c5b3d
Compare
Resolves #3223
This PR introduces a
RELEASE.mdoutlining a proposed release process for the Rusk monorepo. It covers branching, tagging conventions, a release lifecycle, testing phases and artifact publishing.