> WFM, if that means we branch there and anything not already merged has to wait I think there might be value in us exploring the "how we cut snapshots" in terms of allowing us to fast-follow for big features folks may want to get their hands on. If we stick to the same "green circle no regression ASF", I suspect we'd be in a pretty good position overall to cut a snapshot from trunk quarterly as we discussed.
And to be clear, I am 100% uninterested in us re-opening the Pandora's Box Of Sadness that was the semver discussion on this thread :). If we all still agree that cutting snapshots is good, and that's a way for us to "have our cake and eat it too" when it comes to sticking with a train model, then I think the ends justify the means and we can zombie the other thread and power through it. On Mon, Apr 17, 2023, at 4:39 PM, Caleb Rackliffe wrote: > > 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. >>> >>
