We’ll be voting in the very near future on timing of major releases and release strategy. 4.0 won’t happen until that vote takes place.
But since you asked, I have ONE tick/tock (3.9) cluster being qualified for production because it needs SASI. - Jeff On 11/17/16, 9:59 AM, "Jonathan Haddad" <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: >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 >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
