Skip to content

docs: add details for experimental releases #2946

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

docs: add details for experimental releases #2946

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
8d893b1
add step for experimental release
khancode Mar 24, 2025
54d722b
Merge branch 'main' into update-release-steps
khancode Apr 16, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 2 additions & 0 deletions CONTRIBUTING.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -249,6 +249,8 @@ Note: The same updated config can be used to update xrpl-py's CI as well.
NOW YOU HAVE PUBLISHED! But you're not done; we have to notify people!

1. Run `git tag <tagname> -m <tagname>`, where `<tagname>` is the new package and version (e.g. `[email protected]`), for each version released.

For experimental releases, the git tagname should include its own version number along with feature name. Here's an example for [MPT beta release](https://github.com/XRPLF/xrpl.js/releases/tag/xrpl%401.0.1-mpt-beta).
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm trying to understand the differences between a usual release and an experimental release. Why was the MPT feature not release with the normal semver nomenclature? Why do we need to do experimental releases at all?

Should we follow the rc-1, 2, ... system of "release candidate" names instead?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@khancode khancode Mar 25, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It prevents disruption of the version of a normal release. For example, normal version is 2.4.0, we add an experimental feature with the version 2.5.0-beta. However, if we decide to do a normal release without the experimental feature being 2.5.0, then it wouldn't be accurate. That's why it's better for the feature to use its own version.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm still confused. After the release of the experimental feature (titled, say 2.5.0-mpt), what would be the next version? How do we indicate the continuity of the versioning system? Suppose the next release is 2.5.1, users do not know if mpt feature is included in the 2.5.1 release.

Why do we need to consider experimental features? A feature will either be included (if it gains 80% UNL majority vote on the mainnet for 2 weeks) or not. Since this is a binary decision, why should we account for an "experimental feature" ? In this example, the MPT (or) AMM feature would definitely be enabled on the XRPL Mainnet within a pre-determined time frame.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The 2.5.0 is a counter-example. An experimental feature would have its own version like the MPT example that's in this PR.

There have been cases where experimental features (AMM, Sidechains) would take awhile to develop such that we would do incremental beta releases for them. They usually would have their own devnets. In the meantime, we would still do the normal releases with other features/fixes. Therefore, having separate versions fixes this issue.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it's fine to have experimental feature with its own version in case the feature will not be on the next release

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: maybe we should mention that the feature name should not be beta or rc to avoid confusion. I will leave it up to you.

1. Run `git push --follow-tags`, to push the tags to Github.
1. On GitHub, click the "Releases" link on the right-hand side of the page.

Expand Down
Loading