incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Lebresne <>
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.


On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Brandon Williams <> 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 <> 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

View raw message