Jason, That's a separate topic, but we will have a different vote on how the branching/release strategy should be for the future.
On Thursday, November 17, 2016, jason zhao yang <zhaoyangsingap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Will we still use tick-tock release for 4.x and 4.0.x ? > > Stefan Podkowinski <spo...@gmail.com <javascript:;>>于2016年11月16日周三 > 下午4:52写道： > > > From my understanding, this will also effect EOL dates of other branches. > > > > "We will maintain the 2.2 stability series until 4.0 is released, and 3.0 > > for six months after that.". > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > Agreed. As long as we have a goal I don't see why we have to adhere to > > > arbitrary date for 4.0. > > > > > > On Nov 16, 2016 1:45 PM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" <alek...@datastax.com > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I’ll comment on the broader issue, but right now I want to elaborate > on > > > > 3.11/January/arbitrary cutoff date. > > > > > > > > Doesn’t matter what the original plan was. We should continue with > 3.X > > > > until all the 4.0 blockers have been > > > > committed - and there are quite a few of them remaining yet. > > > > > > > > So given all the holidays, and the tickets remaining, I’ll personally > > be > > > > surprised if 4.0 comes out before > > > > February/March and 3.13/3.14. Nor do I think it’s an issue. > > > > > > > > — > > > > AY > > > > > > > > On 16 November 2016 at 00:39:03, Mick Semb Wever ( > > m...@thelastpickle.com <javascript:;> > > > ) > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 4 November 2016 at 13:47, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Specifically, this should be "new stuff that could/will break > things" > > > > > given we are upping > > > > > the major version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How does this co-ordinate with the tick-tock versioning¹ leading up > to > > > the > > > > 4.0 release? > > > > > > > > To just stop tick-tock and then say yeehaa let's jam in all the > > breaking > > > > changes we really want seems to be throwing away some of the learnt > > > wisdom, > > > > and not doing a very sane transition from tick-tock to > > > > features/testing/stable². I really hope all this is done in a way > that > > > > continues us down the path towards a stable-master. > > > > > > > > For example, are we fixing the release of 4.0 to November? or > > continuing > > > > tick-tocks until we complete the 4.0 roadmap? or starting the > > > > features/testing/stable branching approach with 3.11? > > > > > > > > > > > > Background: > > > > ¹) Sylvain wrote in an earlier thread titled "A Home for 4.0" > > > > > > > > > And as 4.0 was initially supposed to come after 3.11, which is > > coming, > > > > it's probably time to have a home for those tickets. > > > > > > > > ²) The new versioning scheme slated for 4.0, per the "Proposal - > 3.5.1" > > > > thread > > > > > > > > > three branch plan with “features”, “testing”, and “stable” starting > > > with > > > > 4.0? > > > > > > > > > > > > Mick > > > > > > > > > >
