continuwuation/continuwuity
continuwuation/continuwuity
14
108
Fork 117
Code Issues 129 Pull requests 23 Releases 35 Packages 3 Activity Actions

meta: Release schedule doc #1981

Open
nex wants to merge 2 commits from nex/meta/release-schedule into main
pull from: nex/meta/release-schedule
merge into: continuwuation:main
Conversation 7 Commits 2 Files changed 2 +107 -25
nex commented 2026-07-14 03:49:36 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Considering we've always had a rocky relation with actually making releases properly, and continue to do so inconsistently, this PR introduces a document that outlines a standard release schedule and policy. This document will help the team stick to a consistent schedule and process, and also communicates expectations to downstream users and package maintainers.

Details in this doc are free to change based on feedback. I doubt the first draft will be perfect.

Note

This document will only take effect after the next release is made, in case it is merged earlier.

Considering we've always had a rocky relation with actually making releases properly, and continue to do so inconsistently, this PR introduces a document that outlines a standard release schedule and policy. This document will help the team stick to a consistent schedule and process, and also communicates expectations to downstream users and package maintainers. Details in this doc are free to change based on feedback. I doubt the first draft will be perfect. > [!NOTE] > This document will only take effect after the next release is made, in case it is merged earlier.
nex self-assigned this 2026-07-14 03:49:36 +00:00
meta: Release schedule doc
All checks were successful
Auto Labeler / Apply labels based on changed files (pull_request_target) Successful in 2s
Details
Checks / Prek / Check changed files (pull_request) Successful in 4s
Details
Checks / Changelog / Check changelog is added (pull_request_target) Successful in 5s
Details
Checks / Prek / Clippy and Cargo Tests (pull_request) Has been skipped
Details
Documentation / Build and Deploy Documentation (pull_request) Successful in 1m0s
Details
Checks / Prek / Pre-commit & Formatting (pull_request) Successful in 1m14s
Details
72b605710e
fix: list indentation
All checks were successful
Checks / Prek / Check changed files (pull_request) Successful in 4s
Details
Checks / Changelog / Check changelog is added (pull_request_target) Successful in 5s
Details
Checks / Prek / Clippy and Cargo Tests (pull_request) Has been skipped
Details
Documentation / Build and Deploy Documentation (pull_request) Successful in 59s
Details
Checks / Prek / Pre-commit & Formatting (pull_request) Successful in 1m7s
Details
5f1b68c8de
s1lv3r reviewed 2026-07-14 03:57:57 +00:00
docs/development/releasing.mdx
@ -0,0 +15,4 @@
release candidate should be tagged and released as a pre-release. This means there can be between 1 and 6
release candidates for a given release.
On the last day of the final week of the month, if there are no outstanding serious bugs, the full release should be
s1lv3r commented 2026-07-14 03:57:57 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Are you here considering "final week of the month" the final full week? What happens if the 31st falls on a monday, therefore leaving no days for extra bugfixing and rc releases as described below

Are you here considering "final week of the month" the final full week? What happens if the 31st falls on a monday, therefore leaving no days for extra bugfixing and rc releases as described below
nex commented 2026-07-14 03:58:39 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Final 7 days of the month yes, regardless of start day. The specific days for the release schedule aren't relevant, hence why they're only referred to in generic ways (e.g. week 1, day 2)

Final 7 days of the month yes, regardless of start day. The specific days for the release schedule aren't relevant, hence why they're only referred to in generic ways (e.g. week 1, day 2)
s1lv3r commented 2026-07-14 14:02:29 +00:00
Member
Copy link

I think it would be more clear if written down as the final 7 days instead of final week

I think it would be more clear if written down as the final 7 days instead of final week
👍 1
stratself commented 2026-07-14 15:10:35 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

I believe the "week at end of month" rule is a bit arbitrary/rigid and can confuse people's expectations if signalled in this manner. I think it's best to let maintainers to stabilize features and tag a new branch on any day of the month. Then, after the RC cycle and somewhen towards the end of the month, a regular release is made. This would work more flexibly I think, especially if you're doing a bimonthly/trimonthly release schedule.

Not sure how this could best be explained in text though

I believe the "week at end of month" rule is a bit arbitrary/rigid and can confuse people's expectations if signalled in this manner. I think it's best to let maintainers to stabilize features and tag a new branch on any day of the month. Then, after the RC cycle and somewhen towards the end of the month, a regular release is made. This would work more flexibly I think, especially if you're doing a bimonthly/trimonthly release schedule. Not sure how this could best be explained in text though
nex reviewed 2026-07-14 04:03:33 +00:00
docs/development/releasing.mdx
@ -0,0 +22,4 @@
bugs are fixed. Additionally, another release candidate should be tagged for at least 24 hours after the patch is
released, to allow for testing and verification of the fix. Only then can the final release be made.
This means a release timeline MIGHT look like:
nex commented 2026-07-14 04:03:33 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

As I was mentioning in the dev room, this might be too frequent.

  • Releases are stressful
  • There's always a period of time after each release where we have to spend time doing support for people encountering new issues during/after upgrading
  • The team spends a lot of time working on other parts of the Matrix ecosystem too, including laborious spec work that can take days at a time
  • Do we even make enough meaningful changes for monthly to make sense?

I think bi-monthly (every 2 months) or maybe even quarterly (every 3 months) might make more sense. The latter would probably want some sort of schedule for alphas though, since we don't want deployments to fall too far behind main

As I was mentioning in the dev room, this might be too frequent. - Releases are stressful - There's always a period of time after each release where we have to spend time doing support for people encountering new issues during/after upgrading - The team spends a lot of time working on other parts of the Matrix ecosystem too, including laborious spec work that can take days at a time - Do we even make enough meaningful changes for monthly to make sense? I think bi-monthly (every 2 months) or maybe even quarterly (every 3 months) might make more sense. The latter would probably want some sort of schedule for alphas though, since we don't want deployments to fall too far behind `main`
nex commented 2026-07-14 04:05:03 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Not to state the obvious but we can also just change the release schedule if whatever we land ends up not working out as desired, perfection doesn't have to be achieved first time

Not to state the obvious but we can also just change the release schedule if whatever we land ends up not working out as desired, perfection doesn't have to be achieved first time
s1lv3r commented 2026-07-14 04:06:17 +00:00
Member
Copy link

I think every two months is a good schedule for releases

I think every two months is a good schedule for releases
👍 3
Crazy_Nicc approved these changes 2026-07-14 14:12:56 +00:00
docs/development/releasing.mdx
@ -0,0 +16,4 @@
release candidates for a given release.
On the last day of the final week of the month, if there are no outstanding serious bugs, the full release should be
tagged and released.
Crazy_Nicc commented 2026-07-14 14:12:49 +00:00
First-time contributor
Copy link

I don't know if this document is the right place to put it, but the Release Announcement should ideally be made after the binaries are done compiling, otherwise people might be confused why only the Source Code is attached.

I don't know if this document is the right place to put it, but the Release Announcement should ideally be made after the binaries are done compiling, otherwise people might be confused why only the Source Code is attached.
👍 3
stratself reviewed 2026-07-14 14:31:16 +00:00
docs/development/releasing.mdx
@ -0,0 +8,4 @@
## Schedule
The release `YY.MM` should be forked from the `main` branch on the first day of the final week of the month.
stratself commented 2026-07-14 14:31:16 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

s/The release YY.MM/The tag YY.MM/

s/The release `YY.MM`/The tag `YY.MM`/
stratself reviewed 2026-07-14 14:34:20 +00:00
docs/development/releasing.mdx
@ -0,0 +35,4 @@
- Day 5: If there are bugfixes, tag `YY.MM.0-rc.5`
- Day 6: If there are bugfixes, tag `YY.MM.0-rc.6`
- Day 7: If there are no serious bugs, tag `YY.MM.0` and release.
stratself commented 2026-07-14 14:34:20 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

The release candidate does not need to match the day number right? I guess the example could be modified to reflect that, as well as same-day RCs with bumped RC versions

The release candidate does not need to match the day number right? I guess the example could be modified to reflect that, as well as same-day RCs with bumped RC versions
nex commented 2026-07-14 15:06:51 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

that's too complex for an illustrative example

that's too complex for an illustrative example
nex marked this conversation as resolved
julian45 reviewed 2026-07-14 14:54:05 +00:00
docs/development/releasing.mdx
@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
# Releasing
Continuwuity is rapidly evolving software that needs to keep up with an ecosystem that demands equally faced paced
julian45 commented 2026-07-14 14:54:05 +00:00
Member
Copy link

s/faced /fast-/

s/faced /fast-/
stratself reviewed 2026-07-14 15:16:37 +00:00
docs/development/releasing.mdx
@ -0,0 +47,4 @@
### Security releases
Following the [security policy](../security.mdx), security releases might be made off-cycle, and may even require
stratself commented 2026-07-14 14:41:53 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

s/might/may

s/might/may
docs/development/releasing.mdx
@ -0,0 +53,4 @@
there is no "pre-release" system for security releases - security patches always go straight to release.
Not all security fixes require a new release. If there are several low-severity security problems that are awaiting
an upstream merge, they should instead wait for the next scheduled release, unless they are critical enough to warrant
stratself commented 2026-07-14 15:14:36 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

s/release, unless.*/release./

A bit redundant

s/release, unless.*/release./ A bit redundant
nex commented 2026-07-21 14:07:01 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

This feels like an important distinction to me, it explicitly communicates that we may make a security release off-cycle without typical restriction mentioned prior

This feels like an important distinction to me, it explicitly communicates that we may make a security release off-cycle without typical restriction mentioned prior
docs/development/releasing.mdx
@ -0,0 +56,4 @@
an upstream merge, they should instead wait for the next scheduled release, unless they are critical enough to warrant
an immediate release.
Security patches should NEVER be pushed to the public repository when a release is not planned to be made very soon
stratself commented 2026-07-14 15:15:39 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

s/should NEVER/MUST NOT/

s/should NEVER/MUST NOT/
nex commented 2026-07-21 14:05:52 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

This is not a MUST NOT, it is a SHOULD NOT (ever)

This is not a MUST NOT, it is a SHOULD NOT (ever)
nex marked this conversation as resolved
docs/development/releasing.mdx
@ -0,0 +61,4 @@
### Release candidates
Release candidates are the primary form of pre-release - they imply a feature freeze, which allows maintainers and
stratself commented 2026-07-14 15:02:55 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

The paragraph may be simplified as:

Release candidates are pre-releases with a feature freeze. They allow maintainers and contributors to fix bugs and stabilize new features before the ultimate release. This is a necessary step in the release pipeline, as tracking the main branch can be infeasible for many deployments.

The paragraph may be simplified as: > Release candidates are pre-releases with a feature freeze. They allow maintainers and contributors to fix bugs and stabilize new features before the ultimate release. This is a necessary step in the release pipeline, as tracking the main branch can be infeasible for many deployments.
docs/development/releasing.mdx
@ -0,0 +67,4 @@
so release candidates are a necessary step in the release process.
Release candidates should be announced in the same way any other release is (ping in the announcements room,
announcement sent out via the checker, etc), but should be clearly marked as a pre-release. Extra attention to detail
stratself commented 2026-07-14 15:16:32 +00:00
Contributor
Copy link

Perhaps indicate that the release notes and changelogs are of equal standards to regular releases?

Perhaps indicate that the release notes and changelogs are of equal standards to regular releases?
nex commented 2026-07-21 14:08:29 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

They aren't

They aren't
All checks were successful
Checks / Prek / Check changed files (pull_request) Successful in 4s
Required
Details
Checks / Changelog / Check changelog is added (pull_request_target) Successful in 5s
Required
Details
Checks / Prek / Clippy and Cargo Tests (pull_request) Has been skipped
Required
Details
Documentation / Build and Deploy Documentation (pull_request) Successful in 59s
Details
Checks / Prek / Pre-commit & Formatting (pull_request) Successful in 1m7s
Required
Details
This pull request is blocked because it's outdated.
This branch is out-of-date with the base branch
You are not authorized to merge this pull request.
View command line instructions

Checkout

From your project repository, check out a new branch and test the changes.
git fetch -u origin nex/meta/release-schedule:nex/meta/release-schedule
git switch nex/meta/release-schedule
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Crazy_Nicc
continuwuation/Owners
continuwuation/Package-Maintainers
Labels
Clear labels   
Abandoned
This pull request appears to be abandoned by its author.

  
Blocked
This pull request or issue is currently blocked from being merged/closed

  
Bug
Something isn't working as intended

  
Changelog
Added
 Changelog entry added

  
Changelog
Missing
 No changelog when one is needed

  
Changelog
None
 Changelog is unnecesary for this change

  
Cherry-picking
Commits picked from other conduit projects

  
Database
This requires or includes changes to the database

  
Dependencies
Something dependency related

  
Dependencies/Renovate
Automatic dependency upgrades by Renovate

  
Difficulty
Easy
 Low difficulty to implement - touches few parts of the codebase, low complexity

  
Difficulty
Hard
 High difficulty to implement - touches many parts of the codebase, high complexity

  
Difficulty
Medium
 Medium difficulty to implement - touches more parts of the codebase, higher complexity

  
Documentation
Improvements or additions to documentation

  
Enhancement
New feature or request

  
Good first issue
Good for newcomers

  
Help wanted
Additional eyes and keyboards are required for this one

  
Inherited
Issues that have been inhereted from the project pre-fork

  
Matrix/Administration
Features pertaining to homeserver administration

  
Matrix/Appservices
Features pertaining to the appservice API

  
Matrix/Auth
Features pertaining to authentication

  
Matrix/Client
Features pertaining to client-to-server interactions

  
Matrix/Core
Issues relating to core matrix functionality, such as state resolution and PDU formats

  
Matrix/E2EE
Issues related to end to end encryption

  
Matrix/Federation
Features pertaining to server-to-server interactions

  
Matrix/Hydra
Issues related to room version 12 and related changes (temporary label)

  
Matrix/MSC
Features pertaining to unstable matrix features

  
Matrix/Media
Features pertaining to media interactions

  
Matrix/T&S
Changes or issues related to trust & safety tooling

  
Merge
This PR is ready to be merged

  
Merge/Manual
This PR should be manually merged

  
Merge/Squash
This PR should be squashed when it is merged

  
Meta
Related to housekeeping, maintenance, or other repo-meta.

  
Meta/CI
Issues related to CI changes

  
Meta/Packaging
Packaging

  
Priority
Blocking
 This issue is blocking the next release

  
Priority
High
 This issue is very important

  
Priority
Low
 This issue is of a rather low priority

  
Security
This item is related to general security

  
Status
Confirmed
 This issue has enough information and is confirmed

  
Status
Duplicate
 This issue or pull request already exists

  
Status
Invalid
 This issue doesn't seem right

  
Status
Needs Investigation
 This issue needs further investigation

  
Support
Questions or support requests

  
bob the builder
pdu logic rewrite starring nexus nicholson

No labels
Abandoned
Blocked
Bug
Changelog
Added
Changelog
Missing
Changelog
None
Cherry-picking
Database
Dependencies
Dependencies/Renovate
Difficulty
Easy
Difficulty
Hard
Difficulty
Medium
Documentation
Enhancement
Good first issue
Help wanted
Inherited
Matrix/Administration
Matrix/Appservices
Matrix/Auth
Matrix/Client
Matrix/Core
Matrix/E2EE
Matrix/Federation
Matrix/Hydra
Matrix/MSC
Matrix/Media
Matrix/T&S
Merge
Merge/Manual
Merge/Squash
Meta
Meta/CI
Meta/Packaging
Priority
Blocking
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Security
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Invalid
Status
Needs Investigation
Support
bob the builder
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
nex
5 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
continuwuation/continuwuity!1981
No description provided.