|
| 1 | +# Develop TUF 1.0.0 in a subdirectory of the current TUF implementation |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +* Status: accepted |
| 4 | +* Date: 2020-11-23 |
| 5 | + |
| 6 | +Technical Story: https://github.com/theupdateframework/tuf/issues/1126 |
| 7 | + |
| 8 | +## Context and Problem Statement |
| 9 | + |
| 10 | +The plan is to implement a refactored TUF (1.0.0) alongside the current |
| 11 | +code base, in order to not disrupt existing usage and keep providing |
| 12 | +a Python 2.7 client. |
| 13 | + |
| 14 | +We need to decide on the best place to do this development. |
| 15 | + |
| 16 | +## Decision Drivers |
| 17 | + |
| 18 | +* Developing the new code piecemeal |
| 19 | +* Continuing to make releases in the interim |
| 20 | +* Avoiding maintenance overhead |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +## Considered Options |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +Develop TUF 1.0.0: |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +* In its own repository |
| 27 | +* In a separate development branch of the current TUF implementation |
| 28 | +* In the default branch, archiving the current implementation |
| 29 | +* In a subdirectory of the current TUF implementation |
| 30 | + |
| 31 | +## Decision Outcome |
| 32 | + |
| 33 | +Chosen option: "Develop TUF 1.0.0 in a subdirectory of the current TUF |
| 34 | +implementation", because we want to add the new TUF code gradually |
| 35 | +while keep maintaining the current implementation given limited |
| 36 | +maintenance resources. |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +Once development of the new version is complete, we will transition |
| 39 | +from TUF 1.0.0 in a subdirectory to stand-alone TUF 1.0.0 by the following |
| 40 | +procedure: |
| 41 | + |
| 42 | +* flesh out tuf/api/* |
| 43 | +* implement tuf/client/new-updater.py |
| 44 | +* implement tuf/repository/* |
| 45 | +* \<iterate\> |
| 46 | +* git mv tuf/client/new-updater.py tuf/client/updater.py |
| 47 | +* git rm tuf/\*.py |
| 48 | +* tag 1.0.0 |
| 49 | + |
| 50 | +## Pros and Cons of the Options |
| 51 | + |
| 52 | +Developing TUF 1.0.0 in a subdirectory of the current TUF |
| 53 | +implementation seems to have the least maintenance overhead compared to |
| 54 | +option 1 and 2, while allowing us to continue making releases with the |
| 55 | +old code unlike option 3. |
| 56 | + |
| 57 | +### Negative Consequences |
| 58 | + |
| 59 | +* In progress development in the default branch causes messiness |
| 60 | + in plain sight. |
| 61 | + |
| 62 | +## Links |
| 63 | + |
| 64 | +* [Discussion of Python version support in TUF 1.0.0](https://github.com/theupdateframework/tuf/issues/1125) |
| 65 | +* [Discussion of deprecation policy for the pre-1.0, Python 2.7 supporting, code](https://github.com/theupdateframework/tuf/issues/1127) |
0 commit comments