doc: add 'Release Phases' documentation #517
Conversation
|
Overall this LGTM but I am noticing a bit of a duplication of content between this new section and the release plan section. Should we perhaps remove duplicated content? |
|
@MylesBorins I'll try and morph the content into the release plan |
BethGriggs
changed the title
BethGriggs
changed the title
|
I've updated this quite significantly to try and reduce duplication. The main changes are:
The above text is far less specific than what we had before, and defaults to "at the discretion of the release/LTS teams". Please let me know your thoughts on removing the list of specifics changes we land such as npm updates, etc.
|
Co-Authored-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]>
Co-Authored-By: Richard Lau <[email protected]>
|
Addressed recent comments from @richardlau, @MylesBorins - I think this is good to go now |
|
|
||
| There are three phases that a Node.js release can be in: 'Current', 'Active | ||
| Long Term Support (LTS)', and 'Maintenance'. Odd-numbered release lines are not | ||
| promoted to LTS - they will not go through the 'Active LTS' or 'Maintenance' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought that odd number releases went through a short maintenance period? is that no longer true?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is true according to the schedule.json- I think we've been purposely vague about it in the past. We can change that - maybe something like "release lines may receive critical fixes shortly after going EOL at the discretion of the Release team"? But I am not sure which is the best approach personally.
| In coordination with a new *odd-numbered* major release, the previous | ||
| *even-numbered* major version will transition to Long Term Support. The | ||
| transition to Long Term Support will happen in a *semver-minor* release and can | ||
| happen either before or after the new major version is released. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We may want to open a follow up issue to track this, if I recall this is the exact thing that caused the "two current releases" thing.
As we will also be transitioning Active LTS releases to maintenance at the same time now we may want to have slightly more robust / clear policy here.
To be clear, not blocking... this should be a follow up.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed - I think #495 had some of the conversation tied to it
Co-Authored-By: Myles Borins <[email protected]>
Please let me know if you think this should be moved elsewhere.