/
2025-03-03 BTR Meeting Minutes

2025-03-03 BTR Meeting Minutes

Owned by Jorge Londoño
Last updated: Mar 04, 2025 by Maria Grimaldi
4 min read

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

 Date

Mar 3, 2025

 Participants

  • @Maria Grimaldi

  • @Adolfo Brandes

  • @Jorge Londoño

  • @Chelsea Rathbun

  • @Farhaan Bukhsh

  • Kevyn Suarez

  • @Bryann Valderrama

  • @Peter Pinch

 Discussion topics

Item

Presenter

Notes

Item

Presenter

Notes

Follow up last meeting

 

1. Retrospective Follow-Up & Action Items

  • Follow-up on the retrospective items from the last meeting.

  • Some issues still need to be created and prioritized.

  • @Maria Grimaldi noted that she has not yet created the issues but plans to do so soon.

  • Team members tagged in GitHub should check their assigned items and provide updates.

2. Sumac & Teak Release Planning

  • Planning for the next Sumac release, ensuring pending issues are addressed.

  • Teak release is tentatively scheduled for April 9th, and team members agreed that unless there is a major blocker, the date should remain unchanged.

  • @Jorge Londoño suggested confirming roles for the release process to ensure clarity before the cut-off date.

3. Role Confirmation for Release Process

  • Discussion about role assignments:

    • Majo will be helping as the BTR chair.

    • @Farhaan Bukhsh will continue as the release manager.

    • Release testing coordinator role needs confirmation.

  • Team members agreed that clarity on responsibilities is needed before the cut-off date.

4. Testing & Cut-Off Preparations

  • Testing will take place over two months following the cut-off.

  • Need to ensure the testing environment is set up and ready before the cut-off.

  • Need to coordinate with Edly to confirm testing environment readiness.

5. Forum v2 Migration Issues

  • Several blocking issues were identified related to Forum v2, but they were not initially in the BTR working group’s scope.

  • Discussion about whether they should be considered release blockers.

  • @Peter Pinch mentioned that some of the migration issues may only impact certain installations (e.g., 2U and MIT's installation) rather than the core release.

  • The team agreed that further investigation is needed before removing the "release blocker" label.

6. Release Notes Process

  • Issues with the current process:

    • Code annotations in OEP-19 have not been well-maintained.

    • The tooling for flag annotations is not working properly.

    • Conventional commits have been more reliable, but they are not structured enough for automated release notes.

  • Discussion about leveraging commit history for release notes while ensuring significant changes (flags, deprecations, migrations) are properly documented.

  • @Chelsea Rathbun suggested reviewing product-side release notes to ensure technical implications are considered, but no formal commitment was made.

7. Maintainer Responsibilities for Release Notes

  • Discussion about whether maintainers should have an explicit responsibility for identifying operator-impacting changes.

  • @Peter Pinch noted that some maintainers may not be fully aware of their role in the release process.

  • The group agreed to bring this topic to the maintainers' working group for further discussion.

8. Test Sheet Review

  • The team will review and update the test sheet, removing outdated tests and identifying areas for improvement.

  • Andres and Peter Pinch will lead this effort – need to confirm Andres role, though.

  • Last week’s meeting discussed linking new documentation to the test sheet for improved clarity.

Retro Sumac.1

 

Retrospective items from anyone who missed the meeting?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Action items

1. Retrospective Follow-Up

@Maria Grimaldi to create pending issues from the last retrospective by the next meeting.
Team members to check GitHub and provide updates on assigned items.

2. Release Planning

Team to confirm the April 9th release date and communicate any changes regarding feature readiness.
@Maria Grimaldi to confirm roles for the upcoming release.

3. Testing Preparations

Edly team to be asked about testing environment readiness.
Establish clarity on testing process post-cut-off and confirm two-month testing timeline.

4. Forum v2 Migration

Determine if Forum v2 issues should remain release blockers or be reclassified.
Increase awareness of migration challenges and discuss impact on different installations.
@Maria Grimaldi to send a follow-up message in the BTR group and tag relevant stakeholders.

5. Release Notes Improvements

@Maria Grimaldi to investigate issues with annotations and flagging process.
@Peter Pinch to gather more details on the current tooling.
Explore automation of release notes using conventional commits while ensuring structured documentation.

6. Maintainers’ Responsibilities

@Maria Grimaldi to discuss in the maintainers' working group about their role in identifying operator-impacting changes.
@Maria Grimaldi to consider updating official documentation (OEP-55, onboarding materials) to reflect new responsibilities.

 Decisions

1. Release Date Confirmation

  • April 9th is the planned release date unless major blockers arise.

  • No known issues requiring a delay at this point.

2. Retaining Release Blockers for Forum v2

  • Issues related to Forum v2 migration will remain as release blockers until further assessment.

  • If issues only affect certain installations, they may be reclassified.

3. Operator Release Notes Responsibility

  • Responsibility for tracking operator-impacting changes will be shared across developers, maintainers, and working groups.

  • The maintainers’ working group will be consulted for input on defining responsibilities.

  • Improved documentation and onboarding materials will be considered.

4. Automating Release Notes Consideration

  • Investigate automation of release notes based on conventional commits and annotations.

  • Structured documentation is still required to capture all necessary details.

  • Product team encouraged to collaborate on ensuring technical details are included in user-facing release notes.

5. Maintainer Involvement in Release Notes

  • Maintainers should be made aware of their role in identifying significant changes affecting operators.

  • A proposal will be drafted to formalize this expectation in OEP-55 or an ADR.

Related content