Skip to content
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

Update the guidance on releases being optional on Record #1412

Open
yolile opened this issue Sep 7, 2021 · 11 comments · May be fixed by #1531
Open

Update the guidance on releases being optional on Record #1412

yolile opened this issue Sep 7, 2021 · 11 comments · May be fixed by #1531
Assignees
Labels
Focus - Documentation Includes corrections, clarifications, new guidance, and UI/UX issues
Projects
Milestone

Comments

@yolile
Copy link
Member

yolile commented Sep 7, 2021

In OCDS 1.2 the releases are now optional on Record in favor of allowing the publishers to publish only compile releases. We need to update the relevant guidance on this.

From #1092 (comment):

it would be relevant to make the approach of only publishing compiled releases known on some of the change history or easy releases pages.

@yolile yolile added the Focus - Documentation Includes corrections, clarifications, new guidance, and UI/UX issues label Sep 7, 2021
@yolile yolile added this to the 1.2.0 milestone Sep 7, 2021
@jpmckinney jpmckinney added this to To do in OCDS 1.2 via automation Sep 13, 2021
@yolile yolile self-assigned this Sep 22, 2021
@yolile
Copy link
Member Author

yolile commented Sep 22, 2021

Should we add a caveat in the 'Easy releases' page as per #1092 (comment) and add a new page to explain how and when to use a compiledRelease? (eg "Latest version only" (other names welcome)) That is because I think the 'Easy releases' page is already long and focuses on still publishing (but not storing) multiple releases per contracting process. If we add this new page, we will have:

  • Change history (for the full versioning support)
  • Easy releases (for partial versioning support)
  • Latest version only (for not versioning at all)

@jpmckinney
Copy link
Member

jpmckinney commented Sep 22, 2021

I never liked the name "easy releases", and we don't want even more terms. There are two main decisions to make:

  1. Whether to have a change history (if not, link to new page about publishing compiled releases only)
  2. Whether to have incremental updates (current "change history" page) or full updates (current "easy releases" page)

There should be a new "change history" section that discusses the two decisions, and why you would choose one or the other, and then link to the appropriate example.

This structure would make the decisions that publishers need to make much clearer. The easiness of implementation isn't the most important consideration, so I'd be happy to remove that word.

@yolile
Copy link
Member Author

yolile commented Sep 22, 2021

and we don't want even more terms.

Agree, but I guess we still need a title for the new/replaced sections, rigth? Something like:

The new section with the approaches discussion -> "Change history"
The current "Change history" -> "Incremental updates"
"Easy releases" -> "Full updates"
The new section with the compiled release only example -> ?

Or what do you think?

@jpmckinney
Copy link
Member

Yes, and the new page can be "No change history" ?

@yolile
Copy link
Member Author

yolile commented Mar 11, 2022

I've drafted here the content for the new two pages (The new section with the approaches discussion -> "Change history" and The new section with the compiled release only example -> "No change history"). @duncandewhurst maybe you can take a look at it first?

@duncandewhurst
Copy link
Contributor

@yolile I've added some comments and suggestions - happy to discuss!

@yolile
Copy link
Member Author

yolile commented May 26, 2022

Should we change https://standard.open-contracting.org/latest/en/schema/merging/#merge-routine as well? At least the first sentence that says "To create a compiled or versioned release, you must:"

@jpmckinney
Copy link
Member

I think we'll need to word a bit carefully, because if individual releases are optional, then compiled releases can be created directly. (Versioned releases, on the other hand, don't make any sense without individual releases.)

@yolile yolile linked a pull request Jun 24, 2022 that will close this issue
@yolile
Copy link
Member Author

yolile commented Jul 11, 2022

Related: #1364

@duncandewhurst
Copy link
Contributor

Just noting that the outstanding task here is to rename some pages and update their introductory paragraphs per #1531 (review)

@jpmckinney
Copy link
Member

I think the main outstanding task is finishing #1531.

@jpmckinney jpmckinney moved this from To do to In progress in OCDS 1.2 Apr 4, 2024
@jpmckinney jpmckinney moved this from In progress to Review in progress in OCDS 1.2 Apr 4, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Focus - Documentation Includes corrections, clarifications, new guidance, and UI/UX issues
Projects
OCDS 1.2
  
Review in progress
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants