-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Release v0.4.22 #6506
Comments
Getting some love when I was actually the cause of the breakage? ❤️ |
@campoy I've done the same thing (deleted release tags). Thanks for jumping in and helping us fix the situation. |
Stage 1... done! Early testers:
This release adds no new features, just some critical fixes applied to v0.4.21. See the highlights in the issue description for a list of changes. |
Call me dangerous, but we've been running ahead of the releases because of a pending cluster integration, which depends on go-libp2p-core. I'm not sure it makes sense to backpedal and test with v0.4.22-rc1, but I can give that a shot this weekend. |
@sanderpick don't bother. All the changes in 0.4.22-rc1 are also in master. I'll count that as a sign-off. |
Things are working well on our end @Stebalien. Nothing major to report. |
Thx @Stebalien, have some suggestion from somebody with both feet still on planet earth 🙃
I still don't know why Protocol Labs has its own non-conventional things 😅 and here is a cute cat: |
Looks good in CI tests. No new or negative issues spotted in our development environment so far. How long do we have to give our final analysis? Ideally I'd like to test things for a week or so in dev but if that's too long thats understandable |
The next release with features will be v0.5.0 so we can clearly distinguish between patch releases and feature releases. For some context:
There's a changelog in the release PR. The previously named "highlights" now named "changelog" section in the issue body is a complete changelog (sorry for the confusion).
Sure.
Is this still happening (i.e., since July)?
Sometimes, because we have good reasons we haven't written down. Other times, 🤷♂️. Never hesitate to ask. |
Take your time. We'd like to get this out to users ASAP but we're also trying out our new release process here and we want to get this right. |
@Stebalien understandable. It looks good right now, CI builds pass, no apparent new issues in dev, and so far no noticeable regressions. However if possible I'd like to hold off on a final judgement for a few more days in case anything crops up. |
@Stebalien in response to your question:
We've been hitting this incredibly often and still do. It's got so bad that we started hosting our own copies of the binaries because dist.ipfs.io has gotten so bad (our ansible deployments were failing around 90% of the time due to timeouts) The only reason we still encounter this problem is because we still have to initially pull new binary versions from dist.ipfs.io |
Uploaded to GitHub.
|
FWIW if you run into issues with sites like |
Most of the time it doesn't work as the content itself is not easy to be discovered, unless magic with DHT or a direct connection. :( Hopefully a new version fixes that :P |
This new version won't fix that, it's just a patch release. We have some DHT patches that we believe will help once deployed to the entire network however, we're holding off till we can finish our test network so we can actually test how this code will affect the network. |
For what it's worth, we hit the same issues, hence: https://github.com/peergos/ipfs-releases/ |
Early testers, It's been a bit over a week. Any new issues with the release and/or can we move on to stage 3? |
tl;dr; LGTM The Qri crew is completely tied up in non-IPFS stuff at the moment, leaving us little time to give proper feedback on this release cycle. I've taken a quick look at the changelog and everything is in keeping with what we've expected, so I'd rubber-stamp this as good-to-go. We're very much looking forward to properly contributing to the early testing process on the next release. Please keep us in the loop! |
@b5 SGTM. Thanks for the signoff. |
Totally forget to reply with my update, it looks good! |
It looks good also for us on Siderus Orion client! |
Stage 1... done! Early testers: We have entered stage 3 of our release process, the "soft" release. At this point, we consider this go-ipfs release to be production ready and we don't expect any more RCs at this point. Please deploy it on production infrastructure as you would a normal release. This stage allows us to rapidly fix any last-minute issues with the release without cutting an entirely new release.
When you're satisfied that 0.4.22-rc1 is at least as stable as 0.4.21, please sign off on this issue. |
Same answer from me this time, @Stebalien. We're ahead of the release at the moment. Consider me a ✔️. |
Same for us @Stebalien. Mark us as good to go. |
That's probably:
Good to know it helped. |
Planned to deploy it tomorrow ( ~10:00 CET ) |
@koalalorenzo 🔥 or 😎? |
Stage 3 done. Building and releasing today (hopefully). |
@Stebalien status on this? |
Built but we're waiting on some blog post stuff. We may release first if we can't get everything ready in time. |
Just wanted to let you know that I very much agree with the decision put a hold on releasing new features until there is a process to ensure that the existing features work reliably... |
non-Windows binary in |
@Retia-Adolf thanks for the report. This should be fixed now and I apologize for flubbing it. |
darwin amd64 build looks borked.
|
@andrewheadricke you've downgraded from master to 0.4.22. Master includes some new patches (and probably needs an explicit repo migration). |
Thanks @Stebalien I deleted my |
go-ipfs 0.4.22 release
We're releasing a PATCH release of go-ipfs based on 0.4.21 containing some critical fixes.
The past several releases have been shaky and the network has scaled to the point where where small changes can have a wide-reaching impact on the entire network. To keep this situation from escalating, we've put a hold on releasing new features until we can improve our release process (which we will be trialing in this release) and testing procedures.
Current RC: v0.4.22-rc1
Install:
ipfs update install v0.4.22-rc1
🗺 What's left for release
🔦 Changelog
This release includes fixes for the following regressions:
It also includes fixes for:
ipfs block add --pin
(ipfs/go-ipfs#6441).ipfs repo gc
andipfs pin rm
(ipfs/go-ipfs#6444).✅ Release Checklist
For each RC published in each stage:
version.go
has been updatedChecklist:
./bin/mkreleaselog
to generate a nice starter listmake test
)make test_go_lint
)Ensure that all the examples we have produced for go-ipfs run without problemsinfeasible without automation https://github.com/ipfs/docs/issues/232repo/version.go
has been updatedgit merge vX.Y.Z
).❤️ Contributors
Would you like to contribute to the IPFS project and don't know how? Well, there are a few places you can get started:
help wanted
label in the go-ipfs repoThe best place to ask your questions about IPFS, how it works and what you can do with it is at discuss.ipfs.io. We are also available at the
#ipfs
channel on Freenode, which is also accessible through our Matrix bridge.This release is currently being readied in #6484.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: