On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 2:47 PM Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:24 PM Keith Turner <ke...@deenlo.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 1:36 PM Sean Busbey <bus...@cloudera.com.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > > yes alphas please. Do we want to talk about expectations on time > > > between alpha releases? What kind of criteria for beta or GA? > > > > There are a lot of changes in 2.0.0. I plan to spend a lot of time > > kicking the tires on 2.0.0-alpha. It may be useful to set a tentative > > deadline for 2.0.0 GA inorder to help anyone else planning to poke at > > 2.0.0 prioritize and plan. Seems like somewhere around 1 to 4 months > > after alpha for GA would be reasonable. Not sure what the exact time > > should be, I just know too short is bad and too long is bad. > > > > I'd really like us to put 2.0 GA readiness in terms of feature / > correctness goals rather than a strict time limit.
I agree, goals should take precedence over a date. May still be nice to set a tentative goal date for completing the goals. Where would be a good place to post this list of 2.0 release criteria? Maybe a Github issue with a checklist? Below are some goals I think would be good for 2.0. * Upgrade testing * Performance testing * Correctness testing * Write examples projects that use new features. * Review and/or write docs for new features and major changes. For my testing I'll write it up as I go. If there is an issue, I could comment about that testing on the issue. > > For example, I'd love to see some assurance of perf consistency. > Solving those kinds of problems can be extremely time intensive and > difficult to schedule in advance. > > -- > busbey
