On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nobody's forcing you to upgrade. If you want twice as much time > between upgrading, just wait for 1.2. In the meantime, people who > need the features in 1.1 also get those early (no, running trunk in > production isn't a serious option). I don't see any real benefit for > you in forcing your preference on everyone, and I see a big negative > for some. > > It's also worth noting that waiting for 2x as many features for freeze > will result in MORE than 2x as much complexity for tracking down > regressions. Given the limited testing we get during freeze, I think > that's a pretty strong argument in favor of more-frequent, smaller > releases.
Until recently we were working hard to reach a set of goals that culminated in a 1.0 release. I'm not sure we've had a formal discussion on it, but just talking to people, there seems to be consensus around the idea that we're now shifting our goals and priorities around some (usability, stability, etc). If that's the case, I think we should at least be open to reevaluating our release process and schedule accordingly (whether that means lengthening, shorting, and/or simply shifting the barrier-to-entry for stable updates). > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Radim Kolar <h...@sendmail.cz> wrote: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@cassandra.apache.org/msg01549.html >> >> I read it but things are different now because magic 1.0 is out. If you >> implement 1.0 and put it into production, you really do not want to retest >> app on new version every 4 months and its unlikely that you will get >> migration approved by management unless you present clear benefits for such >> migration. Compression was nice new feature of 1.0 but it was rejected by >> lot of IT managers as "too risky" for now. -- Eric Evans Acunu | http://www.acunu.com | @acunu
