+1! I like the predictability a schedule would bring. And I think it helps feature users to budget their time a little better -- there's always the next scheduled train, so no need to stress out to ship in the current one.
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:37 AM Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote: > +1 to not holding except for critical bugs and regressions. Using 2.3.0 to > improve automation is a great idea. > > Features can make the next release, and backwards incompatible refinements > should have quiesced long before a feature comes out of @Experimental > status. > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> wrote: > >> +1 - this is definitely one of the (multiple) things that delayed 2.2.0. >> In my opinion releases should be held up for critical bug fixes, but not >> for features. Any feature work can always go into 2.4.0, and with any luck >> we can get 2.3.0 out much faster than 2.2.0. >> >> Reuven >> >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 for starting the 2.3 ball rolling. >>> >>> In general, I'd like to avoid holding up releases for specific >>> features/PRs. The is (one of the things) that holds up releases which >>> then is a vicious cycle for more people wanting to make their feature >>> a condition of the next release, etc. (Bugs, regressions, and >>> backwards-incompatible refinements to new features are fair candidates >>> as the need arises...) >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:04 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> >>> wrote: >>> > Hi Romain, >>> > >>> > no problem: let's try a best effort and define the target version in >>> the >>> > Jira. >>> > >>> > Regards >>> > JB >>> > >>> > On 01/08/2018 03:51 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi JB, >>> >> >>> >> I'd like https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/4235 to be integrated if >>> >> possible >>> >> >>> >> Also the JUnit 5 PR brings some light changes which can be worth the >>> "3" >>> >> digit upgrade so if anyone has some time to review it can be a good >>> >> candidate too. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks for driving it >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >>> >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >>> >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog >>> >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < >>> https://github.com/rmannibucau> >>> >> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> >>> >> >>> >> 2018-01-08 15:37 GMT+01:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net >>> >> <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>>: >>> >> >>> >> Hi guys, >>> >> >>> >> In a previous discussion thread, we agreed that we should have a >>> >> regular >>> >> pace in term of releases. >>> >> >>> >> We released Beam 2.2.0 on the 16th of November '17, but the >>> release >>> >> takes a >>> >> pretty long time. >>> >> >>> >> I think it's reasonable to think about Beam 2.3.0 in the coming >>> weeks. >>> >> I >>> >> would like to propose target Beam 2.3.0 for end January/beginning >>> of >>> >> February. >>> >> >>> >> I'm volunteer to do this release. >>> >> >>> >> Thoughts ? >>> >> >>> >> Regards >>> >> JB >>> >> -- Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> >> jbono...@apache.org <mailto:jbono...@apache.org> >>> >> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>> >> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> > jbono...@apache.org >>> > http://blog.nanthrax.net >>> > Talend - http://www.talend.com >>> >> >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
