Skip to content

docs: add frontend release ADRs to OEP-10 - #815

Open
arbrandes wants to merge 1 commit into
openedx:masterfrom
arbrandes:arbrandes/frontend-release-strategy
Open

docs: add frontend release ADRs to OEP-10#815
arbrandes wants to merge 1 commit into
openedx:masterfrom
arbrandes:arbrandes/frontend-release-strategy

Conversation

@arbrandes

@arbrandes arbrandes commented Aug 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description

OEP-10 pins a repository into a release by cutting a release/RELEASENAME branch and tagging it, which works for repositories that are deployed from, or built out of, a checkout of themselves. Under OEP-65 a frontend app is neither: it is published as an NPM package and composed into a Site at build time. A release branch in an app repository would be inert, since nothing deploys from it and nothing consumes it. Nothing in this repo currently says how such a repository participates in a release instead.

This adds two ADRs under OEP-10. ADR 0002 (moved from frontend-base's ADR 0012 here) settles what branches a semantically-released frontend repository has, what each of them publishes, and how changes travel between them. ADR 0003 settles how such a repository takes part in an Open edX release.

LLM usage notice

Built with assistance from Claude.

@brian-smith-tcril brian-smith-tcril left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall this looks good, couple small comments.

Comment thread oeps/processes/oep-0010/decisions/0002-frontend-release-branches.rst Outdated
Comment on lines +76 to +77
patches from each maintenance line, but declines minors, which cannot be assumed
to work against that release's backend::

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Reading this without context would lead me to question, "Why can't we trust minor version bumps? Shouldn't a feature that requires a new backend capability land as a breaking change?"

I agree this makes sense for Verawood, but saying minor version bumps can't be assumed to work against a release backend feels like us "doing something wrong" and something we should (at least plan to) fix.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Well, here it's less about trust and doing wrong things, and more about just avoiding the perfectly possible and reasonable situation where a minor bump adds a feature the current backend doesn't support. I'm inclined to leave it as-is.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd prefer to have the justification be about not having new features suddenly appear in releases. That's a clear decision about what should be in a release (the features that existed at cut), and shows our pinning aligns with that decision.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok, cool. Reworded.

@arbrandes
arbrandes force-pushed the arbrandes/frontend-release-strategy branch from 3e61cc7 to eb7974e Compare August 4, 2026 20:32
Adds ADR 0002 on frontend release branches and ADR 0003 on how
semantically-released repositories participate in an Open edX release.

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants