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

Parse Server 6 release #8225

Closed
23 of 31 tasks
mtrezza opened this issue Oct 12, 2022 · 20 comments
Closed
23 of 31 tasks

Parse Server 6 release #8225

mtrezza opened this issue Oct 12, 2022 · 20 comments
Labels
type:meta Non-code issue

Comments

@mtrezza
Copy link
Member

mtrezza commented Oct 12, 2022

Parse Server 6

This is to prepare for Parse Server 6 release in Jan 2023.

Schedule

  • Nov 2022: Merge breaking changes into alpha to create 6.0.0-alpha releases
  • Dec 2022:
    1. Feature freeze for alpha branch until Parse Server 6.0 release
    2. Merge beta into release to release last Parse Server 5 stable version before LTS
    3. Merge alpha into beta to release 6.0.0-beta
  • Jan 2023: Merge beta into release to release 6.0.0

Issues / PRs to merge in Nov 2022

The following items are required or reasonable to do before a major release, since they involve breaking changes or relate to obsolete features that should be dropped. The list does not consider features or bugs that are unrelated to the aforementioned aspects and can therefore be merged at any time, unrelated to a major release.

Required

Optional (planned)

Optional (to be discussed)

@parse-github-assistant

This comment was marked as resolved.

@mtrezza mtrezza added the type:meta Non-code issue label Oct 12, 2022
@mtrezza mtrezza pinned this issue Oct 12, 2022
@dblythy
Copy link
Member

dblythy commented Oct 12, 2022

Some suggestions for breaking changes (alongside the current deprecations, https://github.com/parse-community/parse-server/blob/alpha/DEPRECATIONS.md):

Some suggestions for some nice-to-have features:

@mtrezza
Copy link
Member Author

mtrezza commented Oct 12, 2022

I've added your suggestions to the list above, except:

@dblythy
Copy link
Member

dblythy commented Oct 12, 2022

The feature section are just some suggestions for features we can aim to ship by Parse Server 6, not necessarily breaking.

The problem with #7563 is that it will result in a lot of open PRs having huge merge conflicts, so internally breaking in a way. Maybe we can aim to close all PRs as complete or stale by V6, and do the overhaul of modernizing the codebase in V6.0.1, and then normal PRs can continue.

@mtrezza
Copy link
Member Author

mtrezza commented Oct 12, 2022

Yes, #7563 is somewhat complex; we'd want to a void 1 huge PR so we'd try to section the code base and modernize section by section. This way we would also require only selected PRs to be merged.

@mtrezza
Copy link
Member Author

mtrezza commented Oct 12, 2022

I haven't looked into #7979, it seems like a large effort. Given the other (required and planned) tasks we already have, it seems a bit much? I estimate that alone to take ~2-3 months getting done on the side.

@dblythy
Copy link
Member

dblythy commented Oct 12, 2022

#7981, #8202 would be nice too.

Perhaps we can continue the discussion after V6 around #7563.

Yes, perhaps #7979 is a bit too ambitious to be released for V6.

@dblythy
Copy link
Member

dblythy commented Oct 12, 2022

I guess the features are probably lower priority as they can always be shipped in Parse Server 6.0.1

@mtrezza
Copy link
Member Author

mtrezza commented Oct 12, 2022

Agree. What about #7527, could that be breaking / easier to implement as breaking?

@dblythy
Copy link
Member

dblythy commented Oct 12, 2022

Yes, I think that is a good one. We can support it as a non-breaking change, but it's not really ideal to have 2 different startup methods, one that exposes routes before they are ready

@mtrezza
Copy link
Member Author

mtrezza commented Oct 12, 2022

Added to "planned".

@cbaker6
Copy link
Contributor

cbaker6 commented Oct 13, 2022

#7440 should be considered IMO. I don’t see any PR’s open for any of the alternatives others discussed in the linked thread

@mtrezza
Copy link
Member Author

mtrezza commented Oct 13, 2022

Added to "tbd". Seems to require further discussion and may affect Parse client SDKs? So maybe something we should take our time with and tackle in 2023, but that's definitely an important fix and improvement.

@cbaker6
Copy link
Contributor

cbaker6 commented Oct 20, 2022

I believe the update for redis should be considered #7987. It will be a breaking change (see migration guide, particularly the client configuration guide) unless someone provides a converter from the old-style config options to the new redis options. The version of redis the server supports was released 4/21 which is pretty old.

@mtrezza
Copy link
Member Author

mtrezza commented Oct 20, 2022

Good one, added to "planned".

@mtrezza
Copy link
Member Author

mtrezza commented Nov 2, 2022

Removed #7589 from "Optional (planned)", since it's unrelated to Parse Server 6 release.

@mtrezza
Copy link
Member Author

mtrezza commented Jan 26, 2023

@parse-community/server

All required PRs (and a few of the optional PRs) for Parse Server 6 have been merged. Thanks everyone for their work.

If there is no additional suggestion, we'll release Parse Server 6 with the commits on the alpha branch.

@dblythy
Copy link
Member

dblythy commented Jan 26, 2023

Yep, I think we're ready to go!

@mtrezza
Copy link
Member Author

mtrezza commented Jan 26, 2023

Presumed release date is Jan 30 or 31, since we're also consolidating the legal notes and that takes some time. At least we'll still be in Jan, so apart from skipping the beta phase we're on schedule. Nice!

@mtrezza
Copy link
Member Author

mtrezza commented Jan 31, 2023

Closing, release published

@mtrezza mtrezza closed this as completed Jan 31, 2023
@mtrezza mtrezza unpinned this issue Jan 31, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type:meta Non-code issue
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants