+1 ________________________________ From: Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 9:42 AM To: dev@daffodil.apache.org <dev@daffodil.apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Daffodil 2.5.0 Release
Yeah, I'm assuming there's going to be some wrinkles with the new container release process, and since I'm most familiar with that I think it makes sense for me to do the release. If there are issues, I can iron them out for the next release and it should be a piece of cake for who ever does it next, which I agree shouldn't be me. On 12/20/19 9:36 AM, Beckerle, Mike wrote: > +1 > > My only concern is having Steve Lawrence be release manager again. > > Not that I want to do it, I truly don't want the distraction. it's just that > it ought to be a rotating responsibility. > > If however, you want to run the whole process with the new docker-enabled > build and release system, I will table my concern. The release after this > should definitely be someone else. > > -mikeb > > > ________________________________ > From: Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org> > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 7:30 AM > To: dev@daffodil.apache.org <dev@daffodil.apache.org> > Subject: [DISCUSS] Daffodil 2.5.0 Release > > I think we're overdue for another release, and we have a lot of nice > features and bug fixes that people should start using. This includes > UDFs, BLOBs, unordered sequences, improved type safety, initial compiler > speed up changes, 2GB+ file support, and much more. And all non > work-in-progress pull requests have been merged. > > The only outstanding issue I'm aware of is a potential performance > degradation in 2.5.0, but after some discussions it sounds like that is > likely related to the spectre/meltdown patches, and not recent code > changes. And we likely won't know for sure until after the new year. > > So I suggest that we start the process to release 2.5.0 from the current > state of Daffodil, hopefully with the dev@daffodil.a.o and > general@incubator.a.o voting finishing and releasing sometime in early > January. If it turns out there is a legitimate performance degradation, > we can fix that and issue a point release. > > Any thoughts/objections? If not, I'll volunteer to be the release > manager and start the process on Monday. > > - Steve > > >
