geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Murmann <amurm...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Time to cut Geode 1.10.0?
Date Thu, 25 Jul 2019 18:08:19 GMT
>
> I don't believe we should be including anything into the Geode release
> that has not gone through the correct process of feature proposal.
>
> All work under the experimental cluster management service has not yet
> been approved by the agreed upon RFC process.
>

Udo, I didn't take the RFC process that we agreed on to be a gate keeper,
but rather a way to de-risk work before making a PR.

>From the RFC doc in the wiki:

> When to write an RFC?
>
> Writing an RFC should be entirely voluntary. There is always the option of
> going straight to a pull request. However, for larger changes, it might be
> wise to de-risk the risk of rejection of the pull request by first
> gathering input from the community. Therefore it’s up to every member of
> our community to decide themselves when they want to reach for this tool.
>

If we want to change the role of the RFC process, that's fine with me, but
we should have that discussion first.

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:30 AM Jared Stewart <stewart.jared@gmail.com>
wrote:

> What was missing from the RFC process for the cluster management service?
> I saw a [Discuss] thread for it, as well as a proposal at
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Cluster+Management+Service
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:02 AM Udo Kohlmeyer <udo@apache.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't believe we should be including anything into the Geode release
> > that has not gone through the correct process of feature proposal.
> >
> > All work under the experimental cluster management service has not yet
> > been approved by the agreed upon RFC process.
> >
> > I don't believe we should be including this work, experimental or
> > otherwise.
> >
> > --Udo
> >
> > On 7/22/19 4:51 PM, Alexander Murmann wrote:
> > > Udo, do you mind explaining how the RFC process comes into this? Are
> you
> > > suggesting that we should wait if an RFC had a target release attached?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:47 PM Udo Kohlmeyer <udo@apache.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't think we need to wait for this, as there has been no RFC
> process
> > >> followed.
> > >>
> > >> --Udo
> > >>
> > >> On 7/22/19 3:38 PM, Jinmei Liao wrote:
> > >>> Work is still being planned to move the cluster management rest
> service
> > >>> under an experimental version flag and use a geode property to turn
> it
> > >>> on/off. I would say we are ready to cut the geode 1.10.0 after that
> > work
> > >> is
> > >>> complete.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:24 PM Alexander Murmann <
> amurmann@apache.org
> > >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi everyone!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We released Geode 1.9.0 on April 25th. That's about 3 months ago.
> End
> > of
> > >>>> last year we discussed releasing quarterly. In the past we've had
> > about
> > >> a
> > >>>> month between cutting a release branch and actually shipping our
new
> > >> minor.
> > >>>> This means we are already behind our target release cadence.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What are your thoughts on cutting a 1.10.0 release branch this
week?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Would anyone like to volunteer to be the release manager for geode
> > >> 1.10.0?
> > >>>> Thank you all!
> > >>>>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message