>
> I also don't see a place for minor releases as they exist today. It seems
> like they are almost all the overhead of a major release with unnecessary
> restrictions on what is possible.
Yeah this, I've never heard of anything that we don't do in "minors", and
it seems to me that everyone treat
If we have to decide on the date, we need to get confirmation on the
following which I mentioned earlier. We dont want to freeze things and no
one to make progress on
1. Who can sign up for fixing the tests(including upgrade tests). I don't
think we can release without tests passing. We can still
Hi,
What is the role of minor releases in Cassandra? I know that we have guarantees
we make about minor releases that we don't make about major releases (is this
summarized anywhere?), but is there anyone who actually thinks those guarantees
are worth it vs having major releases on a shorter sc
One clarifying point, potentially trivia, but:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:42 AM, Ben Bromhead wrote:
>
> We haven't seen any actual binding -1s yet on June 1, despite obvious
> concerns and plenty of +1s
>
>
Just to be clear: binding -1 votes are vetos for code changes, but they are
not vetos for
I'm on the side of freezing/branching earlier so we can really start the QA
process, but I do understand the concerns.
As Kurt alluded to previously, given our current release velocity, 4.1/5.0
will likely be some time away after 4.0. If we manage to release two high
quality stable major versions
I agree that not releasing semi-regularly is not good for the project. I think
our habit of releasing half working software is much worse though. Our
testing/stability story is not iron clad. I really think the bar for releasing
4.0 should be that the people in this thread are running the code i
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:35 AM Jeff Jirsa wrote:
> Seriously, what's the rush to branch? Do we all love merging so much we
> want to do a few more times just for the sake of merging? If nothing
> diverges, there's nothing gained from the branch, and if it did diverge, we
> add work for no real
Huh, I was writing my response for quite a while and getting distracted so
didn't see this, but yeah if I had a vote, this would obviously have it.
On 11 April 2018 at 03:03, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
>
>
> --
> Jeff Jirsa
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Josh McKenzie wrote:
>
> >>
> >> 50'ish days
>
> In thinking about this, what is stopping us from branching 4.0 a lot
> sooner? Like now-ish? This will let folks start hacking on trunk with
> new stuff, and things we've gotten close on can still go in 4.0
Agree with Jeff here that this is not necessary. The branch point should be
the feature
