Sure! I am all in for time-based releases. I see the point that we can only do Minors as patches(or maintenance) are reserved for hotfixes and security bugs.
So +1 for a time-based release to ship whatever has changed since the last release. On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:29 AM Alexander Murmann <amurm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Sai, I think what you are saying is theoretically 100% correct. As Anthony > points out in practice we'd never go for three months without a single > feature. > > I think it makes sense to agree to aim for the quarterly release being a > minor release as opposed to aiming for a patch or major. If we aimed for a > patch or major, this would likely impact our branching strategy. Breaking > changes would be permitted for a major and we'd need to think about how to > work with a support branch for the previous major etc. If we aimed for a > patch we couldn't merge features, etc. > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:17 AM Sai Boorlagadda < > sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Looking at the current definition it sounds like we can only decide if > its > > a Minor at the time of release and cannot be scheduled. Thoughts? > > > > *> MINOR*: Minor releases can contain minor new features and must > > definitely include significant improvements > > > to current API or components that justify not be configured as > > *maintenance* changes. Minor releases can also > > > be increased if extensions or sub-projects add new features or are > > updated somehow. > > > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 9:35 AM Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > > Practically speaking, a quarterly release cycle means there’s *always* > > > some feature addition or improvement included in the release. That’s > > why I > > > agree with the suggestion of a release cadence based on minor version > > > bumps. See [1] for the outcome of prior discussions on SemVer. > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Versioning+and+Branching > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Ryan McMahon <mcmellaw...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I’m with Sai that it seems like we need to clear up our definitions > of > > > > minor versus patch releases. The referenced SemVer definition > > indicates > > > > that any backwards compatible bug fix qualifies for a patch release. > > But > > > > it was stated earlier that only security-related or critidal bug > fixes > > > > justify a patch release. I personally prefer SemVer’s definition, > but > > > it’s > > > > up for debate. > > > > > > > > Perhaps we can do 3-month release cycles, and determine whether the > > > release > > > > would be patch or minor based on the changes added since the last > > release > > > > (bug fixes vs new functionality). > > > > > > > > Ryan > > > > > > > > >
