Agreed. As long as we have a goal I don't see why we have to adhere to arbitrary date for 4.0.
On Nov 16, 2016 1:45 PM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" <alek...@datastax.com> wrote: > I’ll comment on the broader issue, but right now I want to elaborate on > 3.11/January/arbitrary cutoff date. > > Doesn’t matter what the original plan was. We should continue with 3.X > until all the 4.0 blockers have been > committed - and there are quite a few of them remaining yet. > > So given all the holidays, and the tickets remaining, I’ll personally be > surprised if 4.0 comes out before > February/March and 3.13/3.14. Nor do I think it’s an issue. > > — > AY > > On 16 November 2016 at 00:39:03, Mick Semb Wever (m...@thelastpickle.com) > wrote: > > On 4 November 2016 at 13:47, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Specifically, this should be "new stuff that could/will break things" > > given we are upping > > the major version. > > > > > How does this co-ordinate with the tick-tock versioning¹ leading up to the > 4.0 release? > > To just stop tick-tock and then say yeehaa let's jam in all the breaking > changes we really want seems to be throwing away some of the learnt wisdom, > and not doing a very sane transition from tick-tock to > features/testing/stable². I really hope all this is done in a way that > continues us down the path towards a stable-master. > > For example, are we fixing the release of 4.0 to November? or continuing > tick-tocks until we complete the 4.0 roadmap? or starting the > features/testing/stable branching approach with 3.11? > > > Background: > ¹) Sylvain wrote in an earlier thread titled "A Home for 4.0" > > > And as 4.0 was initially supposed to come after 3.11, which is coming, > it's probably time to have a home for those tickets. > > ²) The new versioning scheme slated for 4.0, per the "Proposal - 3.5.1" > thread > > > three branch plan with “features”, “testing”, and “stable” starting with > 4.0? > > > Mick >
