I agree that it was quite annoying to merge everything to two branches. But part of that problem was that many big features were merged last minute and then fixed after the feature freeze. In an ideal world, all features are stable, tested and documented when the feature freeze happens and most commits go into master only.
I wonder if we can manage to merge queued minor features before the feature freeze to avoid the issue in the future? If we all agree that this doesn't work, we can also try to delay the feature freeze. I just fear that this will make it harder to meet the release deadline. Robert On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Greg Hogan <c...@greghogan.com> wrote: > I’d like to propose keeping the same schedule but move branch forking from > the feature freeze to the code freeze. The early fork required duplicate > verification and commits for numerous bug fixes and minor features which > had been reviewed but were still queued. There did not look to be much new > development merged to master between the freezes. > > Greg > > > > On Jun 1, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Robert Metzger <rmetz...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Flink 1.2 was released on February 2, Flink 1.3 on June 1, which means > > we've managed to release Flink 1.3 in almost exactly 4 months! > > > > For the 1.4 release, I've put the following deadlines into the wiki [1]: > > > > *Next scheduled major release*: 1.4.0 > > *Feature freeze (branch forking)*: 4. September 2017 > > *Code freeze (first voting RC)*: 18 September 2017 > > *Release date*: 29 September 2017 > > > > I'll try to send a message every month into this thread to have a > countdown > > to the next feature freeze. > > > > > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/ > Flink+Release+and+Feature+Plan > >