Skip to content

Comments

Unify server release group#19445

Closed
znewton wants to merge 1 commit intomicrosoft:mainfrom
znewton:server/one-release-group
Closed

Unify server release group#19445
znewton wants to merge 1 commit intomicrosoft:mainfrom
znewton:server/one-release-group

Conversation

@znewton
Copy link
Contributor

@znewton znewton commented Feb 1, 2024

Description

It is painful to share code across R11s, Gitrest, and Historian due to the package and release group structure. This leads to a lot of code duplication and hacky workarounds, as well as a slower development cycle.

Breaking Changes

  1. server/gitrest is GONE
  2. server/historian is GONE
  3. Gitrest and Historian Docker images are built within Routerlicious Docker image

Reviewer Guidance

I'm sure that I missed some aspects of this move that are important. Questions I know I was fuzzy on are:

  1. Do we still need server-gitrest and server-historian pipelines?
  2. Can we rename server/routerlicious to something better now that it includes routerlicious, tinylicious, historian, and gitrest?
  3. Should the historian and gitrest kubernetes charts move to server/routerlicious/kubernetes?
  4. Will this mean that gitrest, gitrest-base, historian, and historian-base will be published publicly in NPM with the same versions as R11s packages? Is that a problem or OK?

@github-actions github-actions bot added base: main PRs targeted against main branch area: build Build related issues area: server Server related issues (routerlicious) public api change Changes to a public API labels Feb 1, 2024
@znewton znewton force-pushed the server/one-release-group branch from b0e6374 to b330b18 Compare February 1, 2024 23:44
@msfluid-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Baseline CI build failed, cannot generate bundle analysis at this time


Baseline commit: 22904a9

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against b330b18

@tylerbutler
Copy link
Member

Zach and I discussed this briefly offline so I'll share the reservations I have here as well.

The major problem I see with this is that we have to ship (== release to npm) all packages in the release group when we release. Thus, everything that's not private gets published to npm. We already publish a bunch of "junk packages" that customers don't use or need, or "junk versions" that contain 0 changes except a version bump. I'd prefer to keep separate stuff that doesn't need to publish publicly/frequently.

We may eventually support releasing/version bumping only a portion of a pnpm workspace but today we don't.

@microsoft-github-policy-service
Copy link
Contributor

This PR has been automatically marked as stale because it has had no activity for 60 days. It will be closed if no further activity occurs within 8 days of this comment. Thank you for your contributions to Fluid Framework!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area: build Build related issues area: server Server related issues (routerlicious) base: main PRs targeted against main branch public api change Changes to a public API status: stale

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants