On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Gary Dusbabek <gdusba...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've been uncomfortable with the amount of features I perceive are > going into our maintenance releases for a while now. [...] IMO, > maintenance releases (0.7.1, 0.7.2, etc.) should only contain bug > fixes and *carefully* vetted features. > [...] > I'm willing to concede that I may have an abnormally conservative > opinion about this. But I wanted to voice my concern in hopes we can > improve the quality and delivery of our maintenance releases.
It should surprise almost no-one that I am +1 on the above. :) I'd like to also mention a potential semantic challenge regarding "bug-fix" releases. Once a "bug-fix" is over a certain scope, or involves a new technique to solve the old problem, it may qualify as a "refactor" instead of a "bug-fix." I believe that we would benefit by consciously attempting to avoid "refactors" while doing "bug-fix" release. I understand that the above is semantic squish, but I think the concepts can be a useful part of this discussion. Peter Schuller also said : > For example, from the point of view of the user, I think that > things like CASSANDRA-1992 should preferably result in an almost > immediate bugfix-only release with instructions and impact information > for users. +1 this very much, from an ops/DBA perspective. If, for example, upgrading to a version can BREAK YOUR STORED DATA PERMANENTLY UNDER NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS, that version should either be immediately superceded by a paper-bag release containing only the relevant fix, or a GIANT BLINKING RED WARNING should be posted everywhere indicating its known-unsafeness. =Rob
