From users-return-213-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@unomi.apache.org Thu Jul 22 14:47:32 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mxout1-ec2-va.apache.org (mxout1-ec2-va.apache.org [3.227.148.255]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC671180626 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:47:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.apache.org (mailroute1-lw-us.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by mxout1-ec2-va.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mxout1-ec2-va.apache.org) with SMTP id 2FAA43F4C8 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 14:47:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 44548 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jul 2021 14:47:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@unomi.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@unomi.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@unomi.apache.org Received: (qmail 44539 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jul 2021 14:47:31 -0000 Received: from ui-eu-02.ponee.io (HELO localhost) (116.202.110.96) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Jul 2021 14:47:31 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 x-ponymail-sender: 20f0e61c3554b620203df07b12e0facaba2fcb7d Message-ID: Subject: Re: Release roadmap References: From: Kevan Jahanshahi To: X-Mailer: LuaSocket 3.0-rc1 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2021 14:47:30 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 x-ponymail-agent: PonyMail Composer/0.2 In-Reply-To: Also I would like to propose my self as release manager for the 1.5.7. On 2021/07/22 14:38:22, Kevan Jahanshahi wrote: > +1 for this roadmap and the 1.5.7 release ! > > On 2021/07/22 14:32:19, Serge Huber wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I'd like to propose a plan for Unomi releases. > > > > I think we should release a 1.5.7 release soon as it fixes some important > > issues and has a few PRs that were contributed recently. > > > > I think the next version should be a 1.6.0. I have been working on a rule > > engine optimization that gives an improvement between 25-200% depending on > > the number of rules. > > > > After that I think the focus should be on 2.0 since it contains important > > changes and possibly include some more improvements on things like > > multi-tenancy and other improvements that might require data model changes. > > > > How does all of that sound ? > > > > Regards, > > Serge... > > >