[DISCUSS] Release cadence

[Parth Chandra <pa...@apache.org>]

As we discussed in the hangout today, based on the last few releases, it
looks like a slightly longer time period between releases is probably
called for. The 1.7 release was almost four months and folks had started
asking questions about the release while the 1.8 release was done in much
less time and we found quite a few show stopper issues at the last minute.
It seems that a three month cycle is probably appropriate at this time
since that does not keep folks waiting for a new release and also provides
enough time for the team to test things thoroughly before a release.

What does everyone think?

Parth

Re: [DISCUSS] Release cadence

[Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>]

+1 on the versioning scheme and the rest.



--
Jacques Nadeau
CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Parth Chandra <pa...@apache.org> wrote:

> Completely agree with you on allowing a release if the need is felt. The
> general release cadence would provide predictability, as you said, but we
> absolutely should be able to do releases with fixes if we need to.
> I would suggest we use a numbering of *major.minor*  for the regular
> releases and a *major.minor.revision *for any release outside of that.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm +1 for communicating to the user community a particular expected
> > release cadence. It helps set expectations. I'm +0 on 3 months being what
> > is communicated.
> >
> > I'm -1 on this being a reason to vote down a release proposed by someone.
> > If a member of the PMC wants to start a release because they perceive a
> > need, they should be able to. A general release cadence is not a reason
> to
> > vote down a release.
> >
> > --
> > Jacques Nadeau
> > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Parth Chandra <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > As we discussed in the hangout today, based on the last few releases,
> it
> > > looks like a slightly longer time period between releases is probably
> > > called for. The 1.7 release was almost four months and folks had
> started
> > > asking questions about the release while the 1.8 release was done in
> much
> > > less time and we found quite a few show stopper issues at the last
> > minute.
> > > It seems that a three month cycle is probably appropriate at this time
> > > since that does not keep folks waiting for a new release and also
> > provides
> > > enough time for the team to test things thoroughly before a release.
> > >
> > > What does everyone think?
> > >
> > > Parth
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release cadence

[Parth Chandra <pa...@apache.org>]

Completely agree with you on allowing a release if the need is felt. The
general release cadence would provide predictability, as you said, but we
absolutely should be able to do releases with fixes if we need to.
I would suggest we use a numbering of *major.minor*  for the regular
releases and a *major.minor.revision *for any release outside of that.


On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com> wrote:

> I'm +1 for communicating to the user community a particular expected
> release cadence. It helps set expectations. I'm +0 on 3 months being what
> is communicated.
>
> I'm -1 on this being a reason to vote down a release proposed by someone.
> If a member of the PMC wants to start a release because they perceive a
> need, they should be able to. A general release cadence is not a reason to
> vote down a release.
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Parth Chandra <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > As we discussed in the hangout today, based on the last few releases, it
> > looks like a slightly longer time period between releases is probably
> > called for. The 1.7 release was almost four months and folks had started
> > asking questions about the release while the 1.8 release was done in much
> > less time and we found quite a few show stopper issues at the last
> minute.
> > It seems that a three month cycle is probably appropriate at this time
> > since that does not keep folks waiting for a new release and also
> provides
> > enough time for the team to test things thoroughly before a release.
> >
> > What does everyone think?
> >
> > Parth
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release cadence

[Jinfeng Ni <jn...@apache.org>]

My understanding is three month cycle is a general guideline.  As long
as it's communicated to dev/user lists, drill dev/user community can
know the time frame for next new release.

It makes sense to switch three month cycle, since it gives people more
time to implement / test new features before a release.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com> wrote:
> I'm +1 for communicating to the user community a particular expected
> release cadence. It helps set expectations. I'm +0 on 3 months being what
> is communicated.
>
> I'm -1 on this being a reason to vote down a release proposed by someone.
> If a member of the PMC wants to start a release because they perceive a
> need, they should be able to. A general release cadence is not a reason to
> vote down a release.
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Parth Chandra <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> As we discussed in the hangout today, based on the last few releases, it
>> looks like a slightly longer time period between releases is probably
>> called for. The 1.7 release was almost four months and folks had started
>> asking questions about the release while the 1.8 release was done in much
>> less time and we found quite a few show stopper issues at the last minute.
>> It seems that a three month cycle is probably appropriate at this time
>> since that does not keep folks waiting for a new release and also provides
>> enough time for the team to test things thoroughly before a release.
>>
>> What does everyone think?
>>
>> Parth
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release cadence

[Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>]

I'm +1 for communicating to the user community a particular expected
release cadence. It helps set expectations. I'm +0 on 3 months being what
is communicated.

I'm -1 on this being a reason to vote down a release proposed by someone.
If a member of the PMC wants to start a release because they perceive a
need, they should be able to. A general release cadence is not a reason to
vote down a release.

--
Jacques Nadeau
CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Parth Chandra <pa...@apache.org> wrote:

> As we discussed in the hangout today, based on the last few releases, it
> looks like a slightly longer time period between releases is probably
> called for. The 1.7 release was almost four months and folks had started
> asking questions about the release while the 1.8 release was done in much
> less time and we found quite a few show stopper issues at the last minute.
> It seems that a three month cycle is probably appropriate at this time
> since that does not keep folks waiting for a new release and also provides
> enough time for the team to test things thoroughly before a release.
>
> What does everyone think?
>
> Parth
>