I think it might be worth considering adopting the release strategy before 4.0 release. Are any PMC members putting tick tock in prod? Does anyone even trust it? What's the downside of changing the release cycle independently from 4.0?
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM Jason Brown <jasedbr...@gmail.com> wrote: Jason, That's a separate topic, but we will have a different vote on how the branching/release strategy should be for the future. On Thursday, November 17, 2016, jason zhao yang <zhaoyangsingap...@gmail.com > wrote: > Hi, > > Will we still use tick-tock release for 4.x and 4.0.x ? > > Stefan Podkowinski <spo...@gmail.com <javascript:;>>于2016年11月16日周三 > 下午4:52写道： > > > From my understanding, this will also effect EOL dates of other branches. > > > > "We will maintain the 2.2 stability series until 4.0 is released, and 3.0 > > for six months after that.". > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > 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 > <javascript:;>> > > 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 <javascript:;> > > > ) > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 4 November 2016 at 13:47, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> 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 > > > > > > > > > >
