incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com>
Subject Re: 6 months a more realistic release cycle?
Date Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:17:51 GMT
+1 too. I also think it's a much more reasonable target.

And I think that making our release schedule more reliable should be a
strong part of that change. For that, I wonder if having a more
organized QA period (basically a more codified release schedule) could
be beneficial. I won't hide that in my opinion our current
freeze-that-don't-freeze-much is not as much a useful tool than it
could be.

For instance, I could imagine something like:
 - 4 month dev
 - 2 month before release: soft freeze, where we stop including "big"
issues and re-prioritize issues needed to get a consistent release. We
could also release the first beta like a week max after that.
 - 3 weeks before release: hard freeze, where we really do focus on
fixing bugs only
 - 2 weeks before release: first RC release.

I'll precise that what we have so far has only be a soft freeze. I do
think that having a hard freeze would be beneficial to improve the
final release reliability and help towards releasing on time.

Of course, all this is open to discussion.

--
Sylvain

On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Brandon Williams <driftx@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am very +1 on this.  I think Cassandra has matured to a point that
> warrants this.
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbellis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> After the 0.7 release we decided to shoot for a fixed four-month
>> release cycle.  I think now is a good time to re-evaluate this, and
>> possibly change to target a six month cycle:
>>
>> - Speaking for DataStax, about half our time is spent on maintenance.
>> Given this, a 3 month window just isn't much time to work on some of
>> the larger features we have planned.
>>
>> - Most of the schedule slip has been in our post-freeze QA period.  A
>> six month cycle would allow a more realistic 6 or even 8 weeks of QA,
>> while still expanding the dev window.
>>
>> - Cassandra has matured enough that there is less low-hanging fruit to
>> pick; two potential upgrades per year feels better matched to that,
>> than three.
>>
>> - The reality has been that 0.8, 1.0, and 1.1 took about 5, 5.5, and 6
>> months, respectively.  So in a sense, officially making it a 6-month
>> cycle would only be acknowledging reality anyway.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Ellis
>> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
>> co-founder of DataStax, the source for professional Cassandra support
>> http://www.datastax.com

Mime
View raw message