docs: update product release issue template

[ther3sa]

Removed checks for interoperability, data sovereignty and threat modeling because of changes in the process

Pre-review checks

Please ensure to do as many of the following checks as possible, before asking for committer review:

• DEPENDENCIES are up-to-date. Dash license tool. Committers can open IP issues for restricted libs.
• Copyright and license header are present on all affected files

[evegufy]

Looks good!

just one thing, it might make sense to wait for eclipse-tractusx/eclipse-tractusx.github.io#865 to be merged to remove also the Styleguide point, which is also moved to a TRG

And just one small hint: the pull request title is very long, would maybe make sense to summerize to into something like docs: update product release issue template

[FaGru3n]

LGTM, looks a bit cleaner now

[matbmoser]

Shall we add the #Feature section?

Examples:

• [R24.08] [Digital Product Pass] Release Checks #748
• [EcoPass KIT] Release Checks #785

[ther3sa]

Looks good!

just one thing, it might make sense to wait for eclipse-tractusx/eclipse-tractusx.github.io#865 to be merged to remove also the Styleguide point, which is also moved to a TRG

And just one small hint: the pull request title is very long, would maybe make sense to summerize to into something like docs: update product release issue template

Hey Evelyn,
what do you mean by Styleguide point? :)

[matbmoser]

@ther3sa there is a new TRG about styleguide: https://eclipse-tractusx.github.io/docs/release/trg-9/trg-9-01

Honestly, I would keep it out of the v24.08, and maybe ensure that is compliant in the v24.12.

[evegufy]

Looks good!
just one thing, it might make sense to wait for eclipse-tractusx/eclipse-tractusx.github.io#865 to be merged to remove also the Styleguide point, which is also moved to a TRG
And just one small hint: the pull request title is very long, would maybe make sense to summerize to into something like docs: update product release issue template

Hey Evelyn, what do you mean by Styleguide point? :)

I think I was confusing it with the point User Journey, I suggest to either remove it or define who should check that in the future, as the role of the PO doesn't exist anymore

[evegufy]

Looks good!
just one thing, it might make sense to wait for eclipse-tractusx/eclipse-tractusx.github.io#865 to be merged to remove also the Styleguide point, which is also moved to a TRG
And just one small hint: the pull request title is very long, would maybe make sense to summerize to into something like docs: update product release issue template

Hey Evelyn, what do you mean by Styleguide point? :)

I think I was confusing it with the point User Journey, I suggest to either remove it or define who should check that in the future, as the role of the PO doesn't exist anymore

@ther3sa could you please provide feedback about the removal of the User Journey or if it's not planned to remove it, who is supposed to check that?

[ther3sa]

Looks good!
just one thing, it might make sense to wait for eclipse-tractusx/eclipse-tractusx.github.io#865 to be merged to remove also the Styleguide point, which is also moved to a TRG
And just one small hint: the pull request title is very long, would maybe make sense to summerize to into something like docs: update product release issue template

Hey Evelyn, what do you mean by Styleguide point? :)

I think I was confusing it with the point User Journey, I suggest to either remove it or define who should check that in the future, as the role of the PO doesn't exist anymore

@ther3sa could you please provide feedback about the removal of the User Journey or if it's not planned to remove it, who is supposed to check that?

I am currently in the process of clarifying how we will deal with the user journey in future. I will provide an update on this as soon as I have a result. :)

[stephanbcbauer]

@ds-hzimmer , @ds-tthies , @ther3sa as discussed ... @ther3sa and I adapted the content. Please have a look beforehand. Is something missing? If yes, please adapt.

We should check topics redundant. Some checks are already done via TRGs

[matbmoser]

@stephanbcbauer and @ther3sa
Can we also add something like: Architecture Approval? Was not somthing that was mentioned in the last technical sync?

Do we also want to include dependencies? Like - Updated dependency graph?

[ther3sa]

@stephanbcbauer and @ther3sa Can we also add something like: Architecture Approval? Was not somthing that was mentioned in the last technical sync?

Do we also want to include dependencies? Like - Updated dependency graph?

Hi @matbmoser ,
the architecture approval will be addressed in the feature issue.

Could you please clarify what you mean by the dependency graph? I’m not entirely sure I understand your idea correctly.

[ther3sa]

@matbmoser @evegufy Could please provide feedback on a basis of the current state. :)

[matbmoser]

I would merge it ASAP in case there needs a update another PR shall be created.

LGTM

[ther3sa]

I would merge it ASAP in case there needs a update another PR shall be created.

LGTM

Thank you, that works for me. 👍
I think we can wait for Evelyn's approval as well, and once confirmed, you/we can proceed with the merge—assuming no further changes are required. :)

[evegufy]

Backward compatibility maintained (depending Major/ Minor) is kind of a duplication to TRG 5.11 but I'm approving as I don't want to block the merge anymore and we should regularly review this template anyway to make sure that it brings value to the release process.