metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release cadence
Date Wed, 15 Aug 2018 17:09:57 GMT
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