+1
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Sam Tunnicliffe wrote:
> +1
>
> On 15 Sep 2016 19:58, "Jake Luciani" wrote:
>
> > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.9.
> >
> > sha1: d600f51ee1a3eb7b30ce3c409129567b70c22012
> > Git:
> > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.g
As probably pretty much everyone at this point, I agree the tick-tock
experiment
isn't working as well as it should and that it's probably worth course
correcting. I happen to have been thinking about this quite a bit already
as it
turns out so I'm going to share my reasoning and suggestion below,
+1
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Sylvain Lebresne
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Sam Tunnicliffe wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On 15 Sep 2016 19:58, "Jake Luciani" wrote:
> >
> > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.9.
> > >
> > > sha1: d600f51ee1a3eb7b30ce3c4
+1
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Jake Luciani wrote:
> I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.9.
>
> sha1: d600f51ee1a3eb7b30ce3c409129567b70c22012
> Git:
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=
> shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.9-tentative
> Artifacts:
> https://re
I've worked on a few projects where we've had a branch that new stuff went
in before merging to master / trunk. What you've described reminds me a
lot of git-flow (http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/)
although not quite the same. I'll be verbose in this email to minimize the
r
"The historical trend with the Cassandra codebase has been to test
minimally,
throw the code over the wall, and get feedback from people putting it in
prod who run into issues."
At the summit Brandon and a couple others were making fun over range
tombstones from thrift
https://issues.apache.org/ji
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Jonathan Haddad wrote:
> TL;DR:
> Release every 3 months
> Support for 6
> Keep a stable trunk
> New features get merged into trunk but the standard for code quality and
> testing needs to be property defined as something closer to "production
> ready" rather tha
Sorry, in my TL;DR I forgot release frequent alphas (nightly / weekly /
whatever schedule you want)
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:18 AM Jonathan Haddad wrote:
> I've worked on a few projects where we've had a branch that new stuff went
> in before merging to master / trunk. What you've described re
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Jonathan Haddad wrote:
>
> This is a different mentality from having a "features" branch, where it's
> implied that at times it's acceptable that it not be stable.
I absolutely never implied that, though I willingly admit my choice of
branch
names may be to blam
What I was trying to suggest is that the *goal* of trunk should always be
releasable, and the alpha releases would be the means of testing that. If
the goal is to always be releasable, we move towards achieving that goal by
improving modularity, test coverage and test granularity.
Yes, it's very
I'm not even sure it's reasonable to
expect from *any* software, and even less so for an open-source
project based on volunteering. Not saying it wouldn't be amazing, it
would, I just don't believe it's realistic.
Postgres does a pretty good job of this. This sort of thinking is a self
fulfil
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Jonathan Haddad wrote:
> What I was trying to suggest is that the *goal* of trunk should always be
> releasable, and the alpha releases would be the means of testing that. If
> the goal is to always be releasable, we move towards achieving that goal by
> improvi
Yep - the progress that's been made on trunk recently has been excellent
and should continue. The spirit of tick tock - stable trunk - should not
change, just that the release cycle did not support what humans are
comfortable with maintaining or deploying.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:08 AM Jonatha
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Blake Eggleston
wrote:
> Clearly, we won’t get to this point right away, but it should definitely
> be a goal.
>
I'm not entirely clear on why anyone would read in what I'm saying that it
shouldn't be a goal. I'm a huge proponent of this and of putting emphasis
o
non-binding +1
Here's the testing summary on the 3.0.9-tentative tag:
http://12.am/tmp/3.0.9-tests.png
--
Michael
On 09/15/2016 01:57 PM, Jake Luciani wrote:
> I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.9.
>
> sha1: d600f51ee1a3eb7b30ce3c409129567b70c22012
> Git:
> http://git-wip-
If you all have never seen the movie "grandma's boy" I suggest it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJLQ5DHmw-U
There is one funny seen where the product/project person says something
like, "The game is ready. We have fixed ALL THE BUGS". The people who made
the movie probably think the coders doi
+1
On 09/15/2016 02:57 PM, Jake Luciani wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.9.
sha1: d600f51ee1a3eb7b30ce3c409129567b70c22012
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.9-tentative
Artifacts:
https://repository.apache.org/cont
17 matches
Mail list logo
