Document the releasing process - General Overview

[j-rivero]

This is the first part of the documentation of the Ignition releasing process. This first part is dedicated to describe the general overview of different pieces affecting the releasing process. I'm unsure at this moment if I will increase this section with other subsections as I wrote the rest of the process but these ones should provide a bit of context for the people wanted to know about the process.

Feel free to comment globally about the structure, missing sections or anything you think is important.

[chapulina]

This is awesome, Jose! The general structure works great! I just have minor comments.

[jennuine]

Looks good Jose! This helped me understand the releasing process. I left some minor comments

[jennuine]

I'm not sure what you mean by "same than stable"?

[j-rivero]

how about 3faffdc?

[jennuine]

This helped but I was still slightly confused. Is this #140 (comment) correct?

[j-rivero]

correct. I think it's currently fixed.

[scpeters]

I think there is some extra information about brew that is relevant

1. brew infers the version number from the tarball URL if it is a stable release number (X.Y.Z)
2. for prerelease tarballs (with ~preX) or urls that point directly to a specific commit on github, a version field is set explicitly (see an unreleased version of ignition-edifice for example). we typically include the date and commit has in the custom version for a specific commit
3. brew complains if it thinks that a new version is less than a previously committed version and gives brew audit complaints. if this has happened, you can bump the version_scheme field (see example). this acts like a version greater than the major version for purposes of brew audit checks

[scpeters]

this is the wrong snippet to show I think. here is a brew formula revision:

• https://github.com/osrf/homebrew-simulation/blob/2352402aceea5dd38a09c1c2ed553d1bb88efeaa/Formula/ignition-citadel.rb#L9

the bottle do block is automatically generated, so we shouldn't recommend people to change it

[j-rivero]

changed in 935ec1a

[adlarkin]

Overall, LGTM! Most of my comments are grammar/formatting related. Thanks for putting this together, @j-rivero!

[j-rivero]

• brew infers the version number from the tarball URL if it is a stable release number (X.Y.Z)

I think that we can leave this to next section where there is more information about how we implement the whole thing.

• for prerelease tarballs (with ~preX) or urls that point directly to a specific commit on github, a version field is set explicitly (see an unreleased version of ignition-edifice for example). we typically include the date and commit has in the custom version for a specific commit

Added a note about unstable packages in 9d712e1. For prereleases packages in homebrew-simulation I see them use the usual scheme of X.Y.Z~pre. Do you have any particular example of a different way of handling it?

• brew complains if it thinks that a new version is less than a previously committed version and gives brew audit complaints. if this has happened, you can bump the version_scheme field (see example). this acts like a version greater than the major version for purposes of brew audit checks

Same than in the first point, probably to be added to next document or inside the FAQ.

[jennuine]

Looking good! I left some minor comments