drill-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jinfeng Ni <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release cadence
Date Wed, 07 Sep 2016 18:02:00 GMT
My understanding is three month cycle is a general guideline.  As long
as it's communicated to dev/user lists, drill dev/user community can
know the time frame for next new release.

It makes sense to switch three month cycle, since it gives people more
time to implement / test new features before a release.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com> wrote:
> I'm +1 for communicating to the user community a particular expected
> release cadence. It helps set expectations. I'm +0 on 3 months being what
> is communicated.
> I'm -1 on this being a reason to vote down a release proposed by someone.
> If a member of the PMC wants to start a release because they perceive a
> need, they should be able to. A general release cadence is not a reason to
> vote down a release.
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Parth Chandra <parthc@apache.org> wrote:
>> As we discussed in the hangout today, based on the last few releases, it
>> looks like a slightly longer time period between releases is probably
>> called for. The 1.7 release was almost four months and folks had started
>> asking questions about the release while the 1.8 release was done in much
>> less time and we found quite a few show stopper issues at the last minute.
>> It seems that a three month cycle is probably appropriate at this time
>> since that does not keep folks waiting for a new release and also provides
>> enough time for the team to test things thoroughly before a release.
>> What does everyone think?
>> Parth

View raw message