ADR 0017 — Versioning & Release Policy¶

• Status: Accepted
• Date: 2026-05-05
• Deciders: @kturner

Context¶

The repo produces three independently versioned artifact streams that each have different upgrade semantics:

1. Sealed SCOM MPs — AzureLocal.SCOM.Library.mp and AzureLocal.SCOM.Monitoring.mp. SCOM enforces strict version handling: a sealed MP version is part of every override pack's reference, and override packs only load if the referenced sealed-MP version is present. The Library and Monitoring packs have a <References> chain (Monitoring depends on Library, per ADR 0007), so their version movement is coupled.
2. Bicep modules / Azure Monitor health model — modular IaC. Customers consume by either az deployment against main.bicep at a specific git tag, or by registering a Bicep module from the published artifact.
3. MkDocs documentation site — mike-versioned, deployed to GitHub Pages. Customers may land on docs that no longer match the MP they have installed if versioning drifts.

There is currently no policy that says when a change bumps major vs minor, no documented relationship between the three streams, and no release cadence. Without one, every release is a one-off judgement call and the SCOM "sealed MP version contract" is fragile.

Decision¶

Single repo version, three artifacts pinned to it¶

The repo carries one SemVer version (e.g. v1.2.0) reflected in:

• package.json / pyproject.toml style root version file: VERSION (single-line, just the number, e.g. 1.2.0)
• <Version> element of both sealed MPs (set by mp-build.yml from VERSION)
• metadata.version of every Bicep module (set by bicep-validate.yml from VERSION)
• mike deploy <version> of the docs site (docs-deploy.yml)

All three artifacts ship together at every release. There is no path where the Library MP ships at v1.2.0 and the Bicep at v1.3.0 — they are released as a coordinated set. Patch releases for one stream still bump the shared version (e.g. a docs typo → v1.2.1 for all three).

SemVer rules — what bumps what¶

Library MP coupling rule¶

Because every override pack and every Monitoring MP references the Library MP by version, the Library version is part of the public contract. Therefore:

• The Library MP version may not regress.
• Bumping the Library version forces a Monitoring MP rebuild (because Monitoring's <Reference> to Library carries the version).
• Override packs authored by customers must be rebuilt against the new Library version for any Library version bump — even patch. We document this explicitly in the changelog.
• We treat any Library MP <Version> change as Minor at minimum, never Patch, to make this contract obvious in tags.

Conventional Commits → release-please¶

Releases are cut by release-please configured in Conventional Commits mode:

A release-please.yml config at repo root pins the schema to simple (single root version) and points to VERSION as the manifest file.

Pre-1.0 behavior¶

The repo is currently pre-1.0. While 0.x.y:

• Minor (0.x.0) may include breaking changes — the SemVer "anything goes pre-1.0" rule applies. Changelog must call out breaks loudly.
• We commit to cutting 1.0.0 only after Phase 5 completes (Phase 6 release).
• The "Library coupling rule" above still applies pre-1.0 — even at 0.x we honor the sealed-MP version contract because customer override packs may already exist in pre-prod environments.

Release cadence¶

• Patch releases: as needed, no cadence. Triggered by docs-fix or CI-fix PRs.
• Minor releases: at least every 6 weeks while in active development; release-please opens a release PR continuously, we merge when content justifies.
• Major releases: explicitly planned. Coordinated with a roadmap entry and a 30-day pre-announcement on the docs site.
• Long-Term Support: no LTS branches in 1.x. If demand emerges post-1.0 we revisit; not promised in advance.

Deprecation policy¶

• A class, monitor, signal, or parameter may be deprecated in any minor release.
• Deprecation = mark Deprecated="true" in the MP / @deprecated description in Bicep / red banner on the docs page; behavior unchanged.
• Removal requires a major bump and at least one minor release of overlap where the item is deprecated but still functional.

Versioning the docs site¶

• mike deploy <version> latest on every release tag — latest always points to the most recent stable.
• Pre-1.0 minor versions get their own slug (0.3, 0.4, …) so customers running an older MP can find matching docs.
• The default landing on azurelocal.cloud/azurelocal-scom-mp/ is latest. Older versions available via the version selector.

Consequences¶

• Positive:
• Single repo version means a customer can match "I'm running v1.2.0" to one set of docs, one MP pair, and one Bicep state — no version-drift hunting.
• SemVer rules table makes "is this a breaking change?" a checklist, not a debate.
• Library coupling rule is explicit, so the sealed-MP version contract is impossible to violate by accident.
• release-please automates the cut, so cadence is bounded by content readiness, not by release-engineering effort.
• Negative:
• Coupled releases mean a docs-only typo bumps all three streams. The version space gets "noisy" with patch tags. We accept this as the price of a single source-of-truth version.
• Customers may install a v1.2.1 MP but think they need v1.2.1 of the Bicep when only the docs changed. Changelog must clearly mark "docs-only" patches.
• Neutral:
• mike versioning means the published docs site grows linearly with releases. Disk cost on gh-pages is negligible.
• Affected components / owners: Phase 3 / Phase 4 first PRs must add VERSION, release-please-config.json, .release-please-manifest.json. Phase 6 release process gates on the rules above.

Alternatives considered¶

• Independent versioning per artifact (Library v1.x, Monitoring v2.x, Bicep v3.x) — rejected; customer mental overhead is high, support questions get harder, and the Library coupling rule already forces near-lockstep movement anyway.
• CalVer (e.g. 2026.05.0) — rejected; SemVer's breaking-change signaling is too valuable for an MP that has a sealed-version contract with override packs.
• No release-please, manual tag — rejected; manual tagging led to the gap that motivated this ADR. Automation prevents drift.
• LTS branches — rejected pre-1.0; revisit after 1.0 if customer demand emerges.
• Skip the deprecation policy — rejected; without an overlap window, removing a class or parameter silently breaks customer override packs.

References¶

• ADR 0007 — Naming convention (sealed-MP 3-pack model + Library reference rule)
• ADR 0014 — CI/CD pipeline (release-please workflow lives here)
• ADR 0015 — Testing strategy (Layer 4 parity test must hold across version bumps)
• ADR 0016 — Signing & secrets (release-key contract pairs with Library coupling rule)
• SemVer 2.0
• Conventional Commits
• release-please
• mike — versioned MkDocs
• Brian Wren — sealed MP version contract (SC2012 Authoring Guide §5)