On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:58 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Nothing is stopping us for discussing CEPs now, and nothing prevents > folks from making their own feature branches. > > I disagree. CEPs are just as - if not more - of a distraction than > branching. > > Work doesn't happen in a vacuum. Those who are today focusing what > resources they can on shipping 4.0.0 will have to divert resources to the > new CEP and feature development happening on the project. It is > unrealistic to expect otherwise. > > We can have a swifter 4.0.0 release, or we can begin earnestly developing > new features, but we cannot have both. > > Agreed 100% and I would prefer to see us all focus on getting 4.0.0 out. I only meant we never explicitly voted to prevent CEPs from being submitted at this time and it was more in response to a comment in the initial email in this thread. > > On 26/06/2020, 22:09, "Jon Haddad" <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > > We currently have 2.1, 2.2, 3.0 3.11, and trunk. With a new branch > we'll > _also_ have whatever is next, let's call it 5.0. > > Nothing is stopping us for discussing CEPs now, and nothing prevents > folks > from making their own feature branches. > > If we're going to add another branch (4.0) and let people merge to > trunk, > we're making an *active* decision to push the 4.0 release out even > further, > because the folks working on it will have to learn the new code when > they > merge forward. > > I'm -1 on branching before we release 4.0. > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:04 PM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Branching anytime before we 4.0.0 adds extra burden to the folks > trying > > > to > > > > get 4.0.0 out the door (because of merge up) > > > > > > Given both that we've done this with every major release in the > past, as > > > well as the type of work we'd expect to land during the beta phase > > > (smaller, non-api breaking, defect fixing or smaller performance > > tuning), I > > > didn't personally originally weigh this as being as much of a > burden as > > you > > > perceive it to be. > > > > > > > > Looking at this a different way, you might say we have previously > cut the > > release branch somewhere around beta. Because previous releases > haven't > > (all) had so much focus on testing and alphas. My impression is that > 4.0.0 > > will be closer compared to a second or third patch of previous major > > releases. > > > > So I would have thought it makes sense around beta or RC to branch, > > especially RC because between RC and GA it is more about a cooling > period, > > public acceptance and testing. That RC to GA window should be quiet > enough > > that it makes sense to branch then, and kick off the CEP discussions. > > > > I don't think the forward merging really is so much of a problem, > it's a > > normal activity in the C* codebase, and the additional merge-forward > window > > between either beta or RC, to GA is short. > > > > Thanks Ekaterina and Benjamin and Josh for raising the discussion. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
