Thanks for all the detail. I do appreciate your time in replying. I'm not fond of the idea of trying to cherry-pick trunk and delay further.. This has just been an odd and unorthodox moment in time to adopt release management, and I simply wish to do what's best for users. It's late, and I need to be up early for an event tomorrow. I'll build both releases Monday or sooner and get votes going.
-- Michael On 09/24/2016 12:05 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote: > Please don’t make me argue over 3.8/3.9 again. We are way, way over > our original schedule at this point. > > Releasing 3.9 now breaks no promises. You still get more than a month > of purely bug fixes in the release. > > And if we only do 3.8 off the current cassandra-3.9 branch, then > trunk becomes the next 3.9, except it already has a ton of new > features, improvements, and a non-trivial amount of bugfixes as > well. > > We could branch off, and cherry-pick all the fixes back from trunk, > but just releasing both now is a lot less work. > > More importantly, it would mean delaying 3.9 by another month. We’ve > communicated that odd ones are to be run in production, so users > stuck on 3.7 would have to wait even longer until the can upgrade > further. And the delta between 3.7 and current cassandra-3.9 is > pretty significant. Let’s not make people wait even longer, please? > > Plus, we had a consensus when this came up last time. Let’s stick to > the plan, because if we keep ignoring our previous conclusions we’ll > never release anything. > > (binding) -1 to (only) releasing the current cassandra-3.9 head as > 3.8. > > Michael: please start both votes. For 3.8 there is consensus, for 3.9 > there is consensus among PMCs. If something changed, it’ll be > reflected in the vote. > > -- AY > > On 23 September 2016 at 21:39:09, Michael Shuler > (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote: > > Jonathan's is a pretty compelling perspective. > > -- Michael > > On 09/23/2016 07:04 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote: >> Both are effectively 3.9 on steroids. One month of features and >> improvements with 2 months of bug fixes on top. >> >> If anything, this overdelivers. >> >> -- AY >> >> On 23 September 2016 at 17:02:05, Jonathan Haddad >> (j...@jonhaddad.com) wrote: >> >> (non-binding) -1 on releasing 2 versions with the same version >> number. Everything that's been communicated to the world has been >> that there would be a feature release, then a bug fix release a >> month later. This breaks that promise. >> >> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 4:23 PM Michael Shuler >> <mich...@pbandjelly.org> wrote: >> >>> Thanks! I'll do these release builds and start votes, first thing >>> Monday morning, unless I find some time on Sunday. >>> >>> -- Michael >>> >>> On 09/23/2016 05:15 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote: >>>> Branch 3.8 off 3.9 with a commit that only changes the version >>>> in all >>> appropriate places. >>>> >>>> Two separate votes works. >>>> >>>> -- AY >>>> >>>> On 23 September 2016 at 12:36:54, Michael Shuler >>>> (mich...@pbandjelly.org) >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> The cassandra-3.9 branch HEAD, commit bb371ea, looks good to >>>> release (which will also be released as 3.8, changing just the >>>> version number). I'm re-running a couple jobs right now, but >>>> overall, I think we hit the goal of a clean board: >>>> http://cassci.datastax.com/view/cassandra-3.9/ >>>> >>>> If there are no objections, I'd like to roll up 3.9/3.8 and get >>>> them out the door. Should this be on one vote, since they are >>>> really the same, or do 2 votes? I'm actually not entirely sure >>>> how the build for 3.8 will work, since the branch was deleted. >>>> Should I create new branch again for 3.8 with the version >>>> edit? This sounds the most reasonable and workable with the >>>> release build process. This actually does sound like it should >>>> be 2 votes, since the commit sha will be different.. Thanks! >>>> >>>> -- Kind regards, Michael >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
