This is best for the users list. Test the releases yourself and then decide when it's ready for your use case, ops team, and organization. This is a personal decision and not one for *thousands* of others on this mailing list to make for you.
best, kjellman > On Apr 18, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Anuj Wadehra <anujw_2...@yahoo.co.in.INVALID> > wrote: > > Hi All, > For last several months, the "most stable version" question pops up on the > user mailing list and then people get all sorts of responses/suggestions.. > If you are conservative go for x if adventurous y.. > If you have good risk appetite go for x else y.. > If you want features go for x else y.. > > Unfortunately, all above responses dont help many users..but only reinforce > the low confidence in latest releases.Who wants to be adventurous in > Production? Who wants to test his risk appetite in Production? And who would > want features for stability in Production? Not many..I am sure. > So my question is: > Would it be a wise decision to mention the "most stable/production ready" > version (as it used to be before 3.x) on the Apache website till tick-tock > release strategy evolves and matures? > That will somewhat contradict the tick-tock philosphy of stable odd releases > but would be more realistic as every big change needs time to stabilise. Its > slightly unfair, if users are kept in confused state till the strategy > matures and starts delivering solid stable builds. > I think the question is more appropriate in dev list so I have kept it here. > ThanksAnuj > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android > > On Mon, 11 Apr, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko<alek...@apache.org> > wrote: The answer will depend on how conservative you are. > > The most conservative choice overall would be to go with the 2.2.x line. > > 3.0.x if you want to the new nice and shiny 3.0 things, but can tolerate some > risk (the branch has a lot of relatively new core code, and hasn’t yet been > tried out by as many users as the 2.x branch had). > > The latest odd 3.x if you want the shiniest (3.5 to be released soon, with > features like the new SASI secondary indexes support). Also, there hasn’t yet > been that much divergence between 3.0.x and 3.x, so risk levels are around > the same, so long as you limit yourself to only the features present in 3.0.x. > > Either way, make sure to properly test whatever release you go for in staging > first, as Michael says, and you’ll be alright. > > -- > AY > > On 11 April 2016 at 18:42:31, Anuj Wadehra (anujw_2...@yahoo.co.in.invalid) > wrote: > > Can someone help me with this one? > ThanksAnuj > > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android > > On Sun, 10 Apr, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Anuj Wadehra<anujw_2...@yahoo.co.in> wrote: > Hi, > Tick-Tock release strategy in 3.x was a good intiative to ensure frequent & > stable releases. While odd releases are supposed to get all the bug fixes and > should be most stable, many people like me, who got used to the comforting > "production ready/stable" tag on Apache website, are still reluctant to take > latest 3.x odd releases into production. I think the hesitation is somewhat > justified as processes often take time to mature. > So here I would like to ask the experts, people who know the ground > situation, people who actively develop it and manage it. Considering the > current scenario, What should be a resonable criteria for taking 3.x releases > in production? > > > ThanksAnuj > > > > >
