Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 2 Current »

All public Working Group meetings follow the Recording Policy for Open edX Meetings

\uD83D\uDDD3 Date

\uD83D\uDC65 Participants

⏮️ Previous TODOs

DescriptionAssigneeTask appears on
  • Feanil Patel will bring up pilot with the DEPR WG and see if we can land an OEP update.
Feanil Patel2025-01-09 Meeting notes
  • Kyle McCormick Will open a discussion post about DEPR, breaking changes, etc. Include link to pilot updates in open-edx-proposals (6 month window)
Kyle McCormick2025-01-09 Meeting notes
  • Kyle McCormick create an ADR about the approach to settings files in edx-platform and how we want to orient them eg. common.py → production.py → development.py or testing.py (desired but not true right now)
Kyle McCormick2024-11-21 Meeting notes
  • Feanil Patel follow-up with Ed/Felipe about the codejail service and whether we should make it part of Openedx
Feanil Patel2024-10-24 Meeting notes
  • Feanil Patel ticket enabling cron CI of master every week so we know when external changes might have broken some repos that are usually not getting updates.
Feanil Patel2024-09-12 Meeting notes
  • Jeremy Ristau ensure DEPR tickets are created for any frontend that can be deleted as a result of the new course-authoring MFE.
Jeremy Ristau2024-05-30 Meeting notes

\uD83D\uDDE3 Discussion topics

Item

Presenter

Notes

Codejail

Is 2U planning to use the edunext service or build out a different one that’s django based?

  • 2U is digging into this and will share out the info when they have it.

Retro of DEPR Breaking Changes Pilot

  • https://github.com/openedx/open-edx-proposals/issues/595#issuecomment-2557510925

  • What works

    • Having a place to find anything that might break me as an operator.

      • It was smart to use this, at first, at least

    • Defining the expansion/contraction of maintenance is useful for our operators to rely on our platform.

    • Added clarity and expectation to the number of deletions that could happen. Pre-pilot, depr was anxiety-inducing. Pilot has ‘totally changed’ that.

    • Month target, not just release target.

  • What doesn’t work

    • Feanil:Going through the DEPR process for every single breaking change is fairly costly, hard to know if something is small and un-used vs big and impactful.

    • Question of “What is a breaking change?”

      • “Removing support for the old way we used to do X” as a DEPR for adding a new way to do something.

    • Sarina: community members who don’t come to this maintenance meeting find the process overwhelming

    • 6-months is supposed to be to give operators time to get ready, but there was confusion about when operators could start doing work and what work they could do.

    • When do we introduce the overhead because we think the overhead is worth it.

    • DEPR became a less-useful notification channel for ops when we started pushing smaller and smaller things through it.

    • Need more clarity on when and how to send changes down which processes, and how they inter-relate: DEPRs, product process, OEPs, ADRs, and any other “breaking change” process that we do or don’t come up with here

Teak Maintenance Priorities


✅ Action items

  • Kyle McCormick Will open a discussion post about DEPR, breaking changes, etc. Include link to pilot updates in open-edx-proposals (6 month window)
  • Feanil Patel will bring up pilot with the DEPR WG and see if we can land an OEP update.

⤴ Decisions

  • No labels