----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jan Lieskovsky" <jlieskov(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "SCAP Security Guide" <scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org&gt; > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 10:55:33 AM > Subject: Formalizing the release process / schedule > > Hello folks, > > since the request to give more formalized shape to SSG release process / > schedule > appeared couple of times in the past already (to mention some example: > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/scap-security-guide/2014-May/005...) > > and since we are hitting the doubt if already make / not to make yet a new > release each > time (each couple of weeks), we have decided to share the idea about SSG > release process > proposal. > > The proposal is to have release of new tarballs to happen at regular time > (each 4 up > to 6 weeks), and have a dedicated wiki page listing when the couple of > upcoming releases > will happen [1]. Something like Mozilla is doing for their products: > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases#Upcoming_Releases > https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar Time-based releases for the win in my experience. Definitely in favour of this change. I would opt for a longer time window though, 4 weeks might be less efficient than 6 weeks because of fixed costs of releasing.

One more thing I wanted to mention: Please please tag the releases in git. It provides more transparency (anybody can repeat the release process and should come up with the same tarball) and is extremely valuable when digging for regressions between 2 versions. $ git tag 1.2.3 $ git push --tags I recommend creating a public release checklist on the project's wiki. I have one for scap-workbench to make sure I never screw up when releasing. See https://fedorahosted.org/scap-workbench/wiki/ReleaseChecklist

From: "Steve Grubb" <sgrubb(a)redhat.com&gt; To: scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org Cc: "Jan Lieskovsky" <jlieskov(a)redhat.com&gt; Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:32:43 PM Subject: Re: Formalizing the release process / schedule On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 04:55:33 AM Jan Lieskovsky wrote: > Hello folks, > > since the request to give more formalized shape to SSG release process / > schedule appeared couple of times in the past already (to mention some > example: > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/scap-security-guide/2014-May/00541 > 6.html) I think a faster release cadence is a good idea in general. But beside speeding it up, some more formalities need to be considered. The biggest one is what is the meaning of major, minor, and patch in the project versioning? When would there be a stable branch?

Then, based on having a versioning policy, its desirable to overlay that with goals. What are the goals for 0.2? 0.3? 1.0?

As the project grows in importance, these need to be documented so that consumers know what to expect.

-Steve > and since we are hitting the doubt if already make / not to make yet a new > release each time (each couple of weeks), we have decided to share the idea > about SSG release process proposal. > > The proposal is to have release of new tarballs to happen at regular time > (each 4 up to 6 weeks), and have a dedicated wiki page listing when the > couple of upcoming releases will happen [1]. Something like Mozilla is > doing for their products: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases#Upcoming_Releases > https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar > > From the observation period of 6 weeks is enough to have "sufficient > count > of new bug fixes / features requests" (aka the evolution step) these > changes by themselves to form a need of a new release. But since it's > difficult to decide if some patchset deserves new release (what's very > valuable for someone, might not be that exciting / urgent for someone else > etc.) to be fair we decided regular release period might be the best option > how to balance out the various requests that might come out. > > Therefore starting from the next release we would like the release to > happen regularly (each 4 up to 6 weeks - this to be decided yet. Feel free > to vote for your preferences) at a date listed on the wiki page [2]. This > could allow us establish automated functionality which could in > sufficiently ahead period of time (for example week ago) notify the list > the new release is coming and if someone is planning from their point of > view critical patches to be included yet, those should be proposed / > reviewed as soon as possible. > > To express personal opinion I would prefer the releases to happen on per > 4 > week scenario (while 6 weeks window might produce more changes in the > tarball & less releases during the year at the end it also introduces some > related inconsistency - one time the release would happen at start of the > month, next time in the middle etc.) since it has the advantage the release > will happen each time at regular (same) period, so users can update their > functionality to better align upgrades with the schedule. > > Yet, since majority of us works on various / multiple projects, it might > happen start of the week might not be the right time for new release > (urgent action required somewhere else resulting into delay of a release > etc.). Therefore I would propose the release to happen each first Friday in > the month (the users could use the upcoming weekend to install the updates > if / where appropriate). > > Feedback, comments, votes, proposals welcome. > > Thank you && Regards, Jan. > -- > Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Technologies Team (on behalf of > SSG > upstream) > > [1] For now the wiki would contain just dates of past releases & dates of > the upcoming ones (possibly also describing the release scheme). In the > future it could provide further information what functionality each of the > releases introduced (and taking it to the very advanced level hopefully too > which functionality the new releases will contain in the future). > > [2] Once the scheme is clear (the proposal is approved), I will create that > wiki page. _______________________________________________ > scap-security-guide mailing list > scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide

On Jun 24, 2014, at 10:16 AM, Jan Lieskovsky <jlieskov(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Steve Grubb" <sgrubb(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org >> Cc: "Jan Lieskovsky" <jlieskov(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:32:43 PM >> Subject: Re: Formalizing the release process / schedule >> >> On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 04:55:33 AM Jan Lieskovsky wrote: >>> Hello folks, >>> >>> since the request to give more formalized shape to SSG release process / >>> schedule appeared couple of times in the past already (to mention some >>> example: >>> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/scap-security-guide/2014-May/00541 >>> 6.html) >> >> I think a faster release cadence is a good idea in general. But beside >> speeding it up, some more formalities need to be considered. The biggest one >> is what is the meaning of major, minor, and patch in the project versioning? >> When would there be a stable branch? > > Thank you, Steve. These are great questions. To be honest I am not able to answer > them, but will try (Shawn, Jeff please correct me where appropriate): > * patch version - no new features, just bug fixes for existing checks > * minor version - adding new XCCDF rules / OVAL checks > * major version - adding support for new product? > > In the current scenario we don't differentiate these from each other (test case > fix might go into release with new rule definition / new product support). After > some time (when master diverged "sufficiently enough" from existing released version) > a new tarball is released. The current approach results into situation we are not > able (at least I) to tell how is e.g. 0.1.18 version better than 0.1.17 one was. > So at least from this point of view having the versioning rules more strictly defined > it might be easier for the consumers to know what got improved from the last version. > > Regarding the stable branch - from the nowadays experience "it seems" the patches > are merged to stable branch in the moment they have shown not to break things. > What I personally miss from the version scheme being some way of expression about > the percentage, how much of the system is covered by the rules and to how much level > of testing those rules have been actually tested. In other words so the consumer > would be able to say e.g. v0.1.17 has had the RHEL-6 product covered to 75% percentage, > with 57% of rules being covered with test_attestation. v0.1.18 should then improve > these statistics (at least I hope so) - not just for RHEL-6, but also for other products. > > Having this applied I think it would be easier to identify the state, when we have reached > the "stable status" for some product. We could define the percentage level (for both cases) > -- border of percentage that once reached the particular product content should be > declared as stable. Then there are tricky things like how to express particular benchmark's > section is complete? Should various sections have various contribution to the final result / > stamp for content for particular product? > > Maybe they are other ways how to measure stability of a content for particular product > (if you have proposals for other different metrics feel free to share them). > > To implement these metrics it might take some additional time / effort, but at the end it > could allow us to support expressions about stability of the product with scientific methods. > >> >> Then, based on having a versioning policy, its desirable to overlay that with >> goals. What are the goals for 0.2? 0.3? 1.0? > > Here again. These are white places on the map for now. Not able to tell how would > v0.3 be different from v0.2 -- is it just v0.3 would have more rules implemented, more > tests equipped with attestations, more products supported? Or would we want to differentiate > also based on the features? If so, what features would be the key ones the presence of them > by themselves to be sufficient enough for claiming new major version? > >> >> As the project grows in importance, these need to be documented so that >> consumers know what to expect. > > Agree on the need of these to be explicitly expressed (if not now yet, they > will definitely be needed with more urgency in the future). > > Thank you && Regards, Jan. > -- > Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Technologies Team > >> >> -Steve >> >> >>> and since we are hitting the doubt if already make / not to make yet a new >>> release each time (each couple of weeks), we have decided to share the idea >>> about SSG release process proposal. >>> >>> The proposal is to have release of new tarballs to happen at regular time >>> (each 4 up to 6 weeks), and have a dedicated wiki page listing when the >>> couple of upcoming releases will happen [1]. Something like Mozilla is >>> doing for their products: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases >>> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases#Upcoming_Releases >>> https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar >>> >>> From the observation period of 6 weeks is enough to have "sufficient >>> count >>> of new bug fixes / features requests" (aka the evolution step) these >>> changes by themselves to form a need of a new release. But since it's >>> difficult to decide if some patchset deserves new release (what's very >>> valuable for someone, might not be that exciting / urgent for someone else >>> etc.) to be fair we decided regular release period might be the best option >>> how to balance out the various requests that might come out. >>> >>> Therefore starting from the next release we would like the release to >>> happen regularly (each 4 up to 6 weeks - this to be decided yet. Feel free >>> to vote for your preferences) at a date listed on the wiki page [2]. This >>> could allow us establish automated functionality which could in >>> sufficiently ahead period of time (for example week ago) notify the list >>> the new release is coming and if someone is planning from their point of >>> view critical patches to be included yet, those should be proposed / >>> reviewed as soon as possible. >>> >>> To express personal opinion I would prefer the releases to happen on per >>> 4 >>> week scenario (while 6 weeks window might produce more changes in the >>> tarball & less releases during the year at the end it also introduces some >>> related inconsistency - one time the release would happen at start of the >>> month, next time in the middle etc.) since it has the advantage the release >>> will happen each time at regular (same) period, so users can update their >>> functionality to better align upgrades with the schedule. >>> >>> Yet, since majority of us works on various / multiple projects, it might >>> happen start of the week might not be the right time for new release >>> (urgent action required somewhere else resulting into delay of a release >>> etc.). Therefore I would propose the release to happen each first Friday in >>> the month (the users could use the upcoming weekend to install the updates >>> if / where appropriate). >>> >>> Feedback, comments, votes, proposals welcome. >>> >>> Thank you && Regards, Jan. >>> -- >>> Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Technologies Team (on behalf of >>> SSG >>> upstream) >>> >>> [1] For now the wiki would contain just dates of past releases & dates of >>> the upcoming ones (possibly also describing the release scheme). In the >>> future it could provide further information what functionality each of the >>> releases introduced (and taking it to the very advanced level hopefully too >>> which functionality the new releases will contain in the future). >>> >>> [2] Once the scheme is clear (the proposal is approved), I will create that >>> wiki page. _______________________________________________ >>> scap-security-guide mailing list >>> scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org >>> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide >> >> > _______________________________________________ > scap-security-guide mailing list > scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide I agree that a time based release makes the most sense. I additionally think that a monthly release, either the first Friday or last Friday makes a lot of sense. Presumably a release on a Friday would mean a new package by the following Friday. 2 weeks in testing for EPEL (until shipped with RHEL) would mean the package would be ready for general consumption 3-4 weeks later. Bleeding edge consumers could help test the package and more risk adverse consumers could continue testing and just remain a month or more behind in releases. As far as versioning is concerned, I believe there should be more discussion around it and what the different versions mean. I don’t think this should interfere with the decision on a time-based release schedule. Just my 0.02. -josh _______________________________________________ scap-security-guide mailing list scap-security-guide(a)lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide