Upgrade improvements
Attributes
Property | Value |
---|---|
Date Created | 2024-10-01 |
Target End Date | TBD |
Slack |
#wg_upgrade_improvements (only accessible from within the company) |
Google Doc |
Working Group Agenda (only accessible from within the company) Project Plan (only accessible from within the company) |
Epic | |
Label |
|
Status | Active |
Goals
The Upgrade Improvements Working Group is a cross-functional group focused on Upgrade Improvements project, one of the top CTO priorities. The project aims to enhance customer’s experience of the entire lifecycle of upgrading a self-managed GitLab instance.
The specific high level goals
- Expand upgrade cadence options for GitLab users (ie. LTS)
- Organizational changes in code development
- Decrease operational requirements of upgrading GitLab
- Appoint end-to-end owner of GitLab release
Other goals
- Remove required upgrade stops from GitLab upgrade cadence
- Breaking changes are limited to major releases
Overview
Upgrading GitLab can be challenging, varying in difficulty from upgrade to upgrade and deployment. The working group reviewed FY25 emergency upgrade tickets so far, gitlab.com deployment blocker dashboard, and customer conversations, group Distribution is also reviewing and validating current upgrading process.
We have found that the current upgrade process itself works in general, there are user experience improvements that can be made to lower the barrier of upgrades, but the upgrade process itself works as intended today. The main challenges are product bugs, configuration issues, migration bug and migration taking too long, these problems are largely existing in the pre- and post- upgrade phases.
Hence, the working group decided to address these concerns in multiple phases.
Phase | Focus areas | ETA |
---|---|---|
Phase 1 |
|
FY25 Q4 |
Phase 2 |
|
TBD |
Phase X |
|
TBD |
Refer to Upgrade Improvements project plan (Internal only) and the project Epic for more details.
Exit Criteria
The north star of this working group is increasing the number of self-managed GitLab instances running on maintained versions. However, given that metrics can be influenced by various factors, and some of them are beyond our control, specific exit criteria for each phase are outlined below:
Phase | Exit Criteria |
---|---|
Phase 1 |
|
Phase 2 |
|
Phase X |
|
Roles and Responsibilities
Working Group Role | Person | Title |
---|---|---|
Executive Stakeholder | Sabrina Farmer | Chief technology officer (CTO) |
Facilitator | Peter Lu | Engineering Manager, Distribution::Deploy |
Functional Lead - Product & Distribution | Dilan Orrino | Senior Product Manager Distribution |
Functional Lead - Test Platform | Kassandra Svoboda | Engineering Manager, Test Platform |
Functional Lead - Support | Brie Carranza | Staff Support Engineer |
Functional Lead - Expansion Software Development | Thomas Woodham | Senior Engineering Manager, Secure |
Functional Lead - Core Development | Luke Duncalfe | Staff Backend Engineer, Manage:Import and Integrate |
Functional Lead - Core Development | Erran Carey | Staff Fullstack Engineer, Create::Editor Extensions |
Member | Gerardo Lopez-Fernandez | Engineering Fellow, Infrastructure |
Member | Vincy Wilson | Director, Test Platform |
Member | Lyle Kozloff | Director, Support Engineering |
Member | Stan Hu | Engineering Fellow |
23aef117
)