We need a "global picture" about what are the issues, and who are on what. We can discuss this topic during the weekly meeting today. We can have a longer discussion when Till is here on Monday. Chen On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Khurram Faraaz wrote: > +1 > > This will definitely help. Identify and Fix the major issues and that way > New Features will be much better. Otherwise, new features on top known > issues is risky. > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Mike Carey wrote: > > > Agreed on all points...! > > > > > > On 11/19/15 1:27 PM, Yingyi Bu wrote: > > > >> IMO, the investment for stabilization would greatly speed-up future > >> innovations and experiments (if we manage to fix all the major/critical > >> issues by the end of that phase). > >> Everyone could face way less blocking issues and need way less hacks to > >> get > >> things work or grab experimental results:-) > >> > >> Best, > >> Yingyi > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Till Westmann > wrote: > >> > >> My main goal it to get the number of painful issues down and I agree > that > >>> that doesn’t require that everything else stops. However, I think that > it > >>> is likely take some toll on innovation as some time would be spent on > >>> fixing issues and merging fixes into the feature branches .. > >>> > >>> > >>> On 19 Nov 2015, at 12:18, Mike Carey wrote: > >>> > >>> +1 --- but --- to be clear, I don't think this is proposing an > >>> > >>>> every-hand-stops-innovating phase. I think the proposal is for a mode > >>>> where MASTER is locked down and all folks do try and fix their higher > >>>> priority bugs on a weekly basis - but that folks who're working on > >>>> separate > >>>> things (e.g., spatial index performance or BAD approaches to data > >>>> handling) > >>>> would still do that, just not in master (which isn't where it's > >>>> happening > >>>> anyway). Master would be closed for business until all "Major" and > >>>> above > >>>> bugs are indeed fixed. (Because that's where we'll cut release > branches > >>>> from, and that needs to be stabilized.) @Till, is that a correct > >>>> understanding? Thoughts? > >>>> > >>>> On 11/19/15 10:49 AM, Ian Maxon wrote: > >>>> > >>>> +1. Our tests need a lot of work, so putting new features on the back > >>>>> burner will definitely help with getting that work done. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:43 AM, abdullah alamoudi < > >>>>> bamousaa@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> ++1 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Amoudi, Abdullah. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Yingyi Bu > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +1! > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>> Yingyi > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Till Westmann > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> there are a number of discussions (on and off list) and other > >>>>>>>> indicators > >>>>>>>> (people on the users list not getting ahead) that we have a > >>>>>>>> relatively > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> big > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> number of issues that affect both the usability (and adoption) of > the > >>>>>>>> system and the productivity of development. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think that it would be good to move into a stabilization phase > >>>>>>>> for a > >>>>>>>> while. In such a phase we would focus on addressing known issues > and > >>>>>>>> only > >>>>>>>> add new features to master is there is broad agreement (on this > >>>>>>>> list) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> the feature is an exception. The goal of the phase would be to > >>>>>>>> address > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> all > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> issues of priority “Major” and above (with the option of agreeing > on > >>>>>>>> de-prioritizing issues …) and to increase test coverage. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thoughts? Concerns? Questions? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>> Till > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> P.S. I think that the 0.8.8 release should not be affected by > >>>>>>>> entering > >>>>>>>> such a phase. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > > >