Release plan - v10.x Maintenance

[BethGriggs]

[Draft schedule]

Week	Release candidate	Approximative date	Release	Releaser
2020 - 02	2019-12-24	2020-01-07	v10.18.1	@BethGriggs
2020 - 06		2020-02-06	v10.19.0	@BethGriggs
2020 - 12	2020-02-27	2020-04-07	v10.20.0	@BethGriggs
2020 - 23		2020-06-02	v10.21.0 (Security)	@BethGriggs
2020 - 30	2020-07-02	2020-07-21	v10.22.0	@BethGriggs (prepared by @richardlau)
2020 - 38		2020-09-15	v10.22.1 (Security)	@BethGriggs
2020 - 44	2020-10-13	2020-10-27	v10.23.0	@richardlau
2021 - 1		2021-01-04	v10.23.1 (Security)	@richardlau
2021 - 4		2021-01-26	v10.23.2	@richardlau
2021 - 6		2021-02-09	v10.23.3	@richardlau
2021 - 8		2021-02-23	v10.24.0 (Security)	@richardlau

//cc @nodejs/release

[BethGriggs]

There's a delay to this weeks RC due to test failures on the v10.x branch that I am still digging into - nodejs/node#30639

[MylesBorins]

I think we may want to push of the maintenance date to May 19th thoughts?

[richardlau]

In today's WG meeting I did ask about whether it was necessary to move the maintenance date (from 30th April 2020) but since the meeting ended I've remembered we would still like to move the 10.x releases to build on macOS 10.15 to address the notarization issues so giving ourselves some extra time would be good as there's a small element of risk there. So I'm now +1 to moving the maintenance date.

[mhdawson]

+1 to moving from me as well due to the notarization issue.

[sam-github]

possibly relevant: nodejs/node#32846

[richardlau]

Question about a minor before going into maintenance: nodejs/node#33061 (comment). We used to have a specific exemption for n-api during maintenance but it looks like the wording got lost during #517.

[MylesBorins]

If that got lost it was unintentional. We should get a PR to add it back. I can't volunteer to do it this week but could dig in later if no one else has time.

…

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 2:12 PM Richard Lau ***@***.***> wrote: Question about a minor before going into maintenance: nodejs/node#33061 (comment) <nodejs/node#33061 (comment)>. We used to have a specific exemption for n-api during maintenance but it looks like the wording got lost during #517 <#517>. — You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#504 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADZYV3HUPZPZJI6Y67OXR3RPBUYHANCNFSM4JOVDIRA> .

[BethGriggs]

I didn't think it was unintentional, #517 aimed to generalise our policy to the following:

Maintenance - Critical bug fixes and security updates. New features may be added at the discretion of the LTS team - typically only in cases where the new feature supports migration to later release lines.

Refs: #517 (comment)

But with that being said, I wouldn't be against calling out the N-API exemption specifically again.

[mhdawson]

@BethGriggs I think it's useful to have the agreement related to N-API captured so it would be good to put that back in.