It doesn’t look like we agreed to a policy of annual branch dates, only annual releases and that we would schedule this for 4.1 based on 4.0’s branch date. Given this was the reasoning proposed I can see why folk would expect this would happen for the next release. I don’t think there was a strong enough commitment here to be bound by, it if we think different maths would work better.
I recall the goal for an annual cadence was to ensure we don’t have lengthy periods between releases like 3.x to 4.0, and to try to reduce the pressure certain contributors might feel to hit a specific release with a given feature. I think it’s better to revisit these underlying reasons and check how they apply than to pick a mechanism and stick to it too closely. The last release was quite recent, so we aren’t at risk of slow releases here. Similarly, there are some features that the *project* would probably benefit from landing prior to release, if this doesn’t push release back too far. > On 1 Mar 2023, at 13:38, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> My thoughts don't touch on CEPs inflight. > > > > For the sake of broadening the discussion, additional questions I think > worthwhile to raise are… > > 1. What third parties, or other initiatives, are invested and/or working > against the May deadline? and what are their views on changing it? > 1a. If we push branching back to September, how confident are we that we'll > get to GA before the December Summit? > 2. What CEPs look like not landing by May that we consider a must-have this > year? > 2a. Is it just tail-end commits in those CEPs that won't make it? Can these > land (with or without a waiver) during the alpha phase? > 2b. If the final components to specified CEPs are not approved/appropriate > to land during alpha, would it be better if the project commits to a one-off > half-year release later in the year?
