metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Miklavcic <michael.miklav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release cadence
Date Wed, 15 Aug 2018 19:21:54 GMT
Works for me, that would be great.

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:22 PM Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you like, I can volunteer to kick off a discuss thread when I submit the
> board report.
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:21 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> michael.miklavcic@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm also a fan of the 2-3 month time frame for releases. And I agree it
> > fits nicely with our board report. That said, I think we should minimally
> > kick off a DISCUSS at least every 2 months per the recommendations above.
> > If it's warranted, great. If not, then we bring it up at a stated later
> > time for re-evaluation.
> >
> > Fwiw, some upcoming features post-0.6.0 that I'm seeing which are also
> > large-ish and will fit nicely into the next cycle (pending completion, of
> > course):
> >
> >    1. NiFi Metron parsers
> >    2. Profiler enhancements - bootstrapping, etc.
> >    3. Knox SSO
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:10 AM Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Strictly selfishly, I'd love for a release to happen quickly enough to
> > have
> > > something to announce to the board during the reports.  Once every 2
> > months
> > > or when a sufficiently complicated change happens sounds like a
> sensible
> > > cadence.
> > >
> > > I very much support a "how do we get to 1.0" discussion, maybe as a
> > > separate thread?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:56 AM Zeolla@GMail.com <zeolla@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm a fan of a hybrid time/feature-based cadence.  Something like
> > "When 3
> > > > months has passed since our last release, or a sufficiently
> complicated
> > > > change has been introduced to master (like merging a FB), a discuss
> > > thread
> > > > is started".  I'm primarily thinking of what the upgrade path looks
> > like
> > > > (more on that in a "how do we get to 1.0" discuss).
> > > >
> > > > Jon
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:02 AM Justin Leet <justinjleet@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > In concert with the discuss thread on a potential 0.6.0 release,
> I'd
> > > also
> > > > > like start a discussion about our release cadence.  We've generally
> > > been
> > > > > pretty relaxed around doing releases, and I'm curious what people's
> > > > > thoughts are on adopting a somewhat more regular schedule.
> > > > >
> > > > > Couple questions I think are relevant
> > > > > 1. Is this something we should work towards and, if we do, how do
> we
> > > want
> > > > > to go about it?
> > > > >
> > > > >    - "Whenever someone feels like pushing out a discuss thread"?
> > > > >    - "Let's just start a discuss thread every X and if we want to
> > > release
> > > > >    we release"?
> > > > >    - "let's try to get a release out every X and what's on the bus
> is
> > > on
> > > > >    the bus"?
> > > > >    - Something else?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Assuming we do want to do more regular releases, what's the
> > > timeframe
> > > > > we'd like to shoot for?
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally, I'd like to just start a discuss thread regularly, with
> > the
> > > > > built-in expectation that not every thread should necessarily lead
> > to a
> > > > > release. I don't want to be forcing release overhead when there's
> not
> > > > > enough to merit a release, but releasing more often than we often
> do
> > > now
> > > > > would provide a lot of values to users.
> > > > >
> > > > > In terms of timeframe, I tend to think a 2-3 month cadence for the
> > > > threads
> > > > > is reasonable. It's long enough to potentially accrue enough
> features
> > > to
> > > > > merit a release, but short enough that when we pass on a release
> > we're
> > > > > probably fine just waiting for another cycle to come around.  The
> > last
> > > > > release was ~2 months ago and we have a good amount of stuff here,
> > but
> > > I
> > > > > also don't expect two feature branches going in to be the norm.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd expect whatever comes out of this thread to also be relatively
> > > > > informal. At least right now, I don't feel like we need a rigid
> > > schedule,
> > > > > and I'd still like people to feel encouraged to propose a release,
> > > > > particularly when there are a couple major features or critical
> > fixes.
> > > > > Alternatively, I would expect some of these discuss threads to
> > > conclude,
> > > > > "We should do a release, but let's wait a couple waits for these
> > > tickets
> > > > to
> > > > > finish up" (e.g. like the Pcap query panel).
> > > > >
> > > > > Justin
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Jon
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message