Sounds OK to me, for the same reasons Dan stipulated.
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Mike Percy <mpe...@apache.org> wrote: > JD, this seems reasonable to me. > > Mike > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Dan Burkert <d...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> Sounds good to me, I like the idea of having a bit more time to shake any >> last bugs out before the big release. >> >> - Dan >> >> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jdcry...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > Hey devs, >> > >> > 5 months ago I wrote up this plan[1] about release cadence and 1.0, and >> > we've been sticking pretty close to it. After 0.9.0 I bumped up the >> version >> > to 1.0.0 assuming it'd be the next release, but on second thought this >> > might have been a mistake since it doesn't allow for any other >> intermediate >> > release. >> > >> > What's prompting this is that we're still ingesting a lot of new code >> with >> > many more patches up for review. We've been good up to this point at >> > delivering new features early and often, so I wouldn't want to block that >> > while we stabilize 1.0. >> > >> > The plan I'm suggesting: >> > - Release 0.10.0 in early August, which follows our "one major version >> > release every two months" cadence. >> > - Wait a few weeks for the new bits to be exercised then release 1.0 in >> > September. >> > >> > In essence, 0.10.0 would act like a "1.0.0-preview" but I'd rather not >> set >> > a precedent here. >> > >> > If there are no objections, I'll proceed with the version change soon. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > J-D >> > >> > 1. >> > >> > >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/kudu-dev/201602.mbox/%3ccagptdncmbwwx8p+ygkzhfl2xcmktscu-rhlcqfsns1uvsbr...@mail.gmail.com%3E >> > >>
