incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Evans <>
Subject Re: 6 months a more realistic release cycle?
Date Sat, 21 Apr 2012 17:59:34 GMT
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <> wrote:
> +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.

I always assumed this was a symptom of a release cycle that was too short.

> 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.

I'm not opposed, but I'd rather see us try a longer release cycle
before introducing too much rigor here.

Maybe a roadmap would be helpful.  Again, I think it's worth avoiding
too much rigor, but if we agreed on the largish items to be done
during a cycle up front, with gates at various stages (phase 1 by date
A, phase 2 by date B, etc), we might keep the scope from creeping as

Eric Evans
Acunu | | @acunu

View raw message