> My personal .02: I think we should consider branching 5.0 September 1st. That gives us basically 12 weeks for folks to do their testing and for us to stabilize anything that's flaky in circle or regressed in ASF CI.
WFM, if that means we branch there and anything not already merged has to wait On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 3:37 PM Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > it's (b) for me, and everything minus 21 and 15 is defining enough to > warrant the branching and a checkpoint where testing can start > > Ok, I don't follow. > > There's three different ways I can read what you're saying here: > > 1. "Everything we have targeting 5.x is substantial and we can branch > when it's done", that'd mean 600+ open tickets, so it can't be that: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20cassandra%20and%20fixversion%20%3D%205.x%20and%20resolution%20%3D%20unresolved > 2. "Everything we've *already merged today* targeting 5.x is > substantial and we can branch now"... I don't think that's quite right? > Since that'd put the release far too early after December '22. > 3. "Everything we expect to merge by August 1st, regardless of CEP-21 > and CEP-15, is substantial enough for us to cut a release then" - that's > arguing for a feature-driven release rather than a train right? > > Sorry; I'm definitely not *trying* to be obtuse, I'm just having a hard > time understanding how what the two of you are saying actually lines up. > > My personal .02: I think we should consider branching 5.0 September 1st. > That gives us basically 12 weeks for folks to do their testing and for us > to stabilize anything that's flaky in circle or regressed in ASF CI. > > If CEP-15 or CEP-21 land shortly after (early September), we can cross > that bridge when the time comes. > > That's my hot take. We move to a train model and stick with it, and we > start to get comfortable with cutting feature previews or snapshot alphas > like we agreed to for earlier access to new stuff. > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023, at 4:25 PM, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > > b.) Cut a 5.0 branch when the major release-defining element (maybe > CEP-21?) merges to trunk, with the shared understanding (possibly what > we're disagreeing about) that very little of what we need to test/de-risk > is going to be inhibited by not cutting that branch earlier (and that > certain testing efforts would be almost wholesale wasted if done > beforehand). > > > > Yup, it's (b) for me, and everything minus 21 and 15 is defining enough to > warrant the branching and a checkpoint where testing can start and not be > wasted. I understand that cep-21 changes a lot and that impacts testing, > but I wholeheartedly trust testers to be taking this into consideration. > > >
