Works for me, that would be great. On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:22 PM Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you like, I can volunteer to kick off a discuss thread when I submit the > board report. > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:21 PM Michael Miklavcic < > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm also a fan of the 2-3 month time frame for releases. And I agree it > > fits nicely with our board report. That said, I think we should minimally > > kick off a DISCUSS at least every 2 months per the recommendations above. > > If it's warranted, great. If not, then we bring it up at a stated later > > time for re-evaluation. > > > > Fwiw, some upcoming features post-0.6.0 that I'm seeing which are also > > large-ish and will fit nicely into the next cycle (pending completion, of > > course): > > > > 1. NiFi Metron parsers > > 2. Profiler enhancements - bootstrapping, etc. > > 3. Knox SSO > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:10 AM Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Strictly selfishly, I'd love for a release to happen quickly enough to > > have > > > something to announce to the board during the reports. Once every 2 > > months > > > or when a sufficiently complicated change happens sounds like a > sensible > > > cadence. > > > > > > I very much support a "how do we get to 1.0" discussion, maybe as a > > > separate thread? > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:56 AM zeo...@gmail.com <zeo...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I'm a fan of a hybrid time/feature-based cadence. Something like > > "When 3 > > > > months has passed since our last release, or a sufficiently > complicated > > > > change has been introduced to master (like merging a FB), a discuss > > > thread > > > > is started". I'm primarily thinking of what the upgrade path looks > > like > > > > (more on that in a "how do we get to 1.0" discuss). > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:02 AM Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > In concert with the discuss thread on a potential 0.6.0 release, > I'd > > > also > > > > > like start a discussion about our release cadence. We've generally > > > been > > > > > pretty relaxed around doing releases, and I'm curious what people's > > > > > thoughts are on adopting a somewhat more regular schedule. > > > > > > > > > > Couple questions I think are relevant > > > > > 1. Is this something we should work towards and, if we do, how do > we > > > want > > > > > to go about it? > > > > > > > > > > - "Whenever someone feels like pushing out a discuss thread"? > > > > > - "Let's just start a discuss thread every X and if we want to > > > release > > > > > we release"? > > > > > - "let's try to get a release out every X and what's on the bus > is > > > on > > > > > the bus"? > > > > > - Something else? > > > > > > > > > > 2. Assuming we do want to do more regular releases, what's the > > > timeframe > > > > > we'd like to shoot for? > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I'd like to just start a discuss thread regularly, with > > the > > > > > built-in expectation that not every thread should necessarily lead > > to a > > > > > release. I don't want to be forcing release overhead when there's > not > > > > > enough to merit a release, but releasing more often than we often > do > > > now > > > > > would provide a lot of values to users. > > > > > > > > > > In terms of timeframe, I tend to think a 2-3 month cadence for the > > > > threads > > > > > is reasonable. It's long enough to potentially accrue enough > features > > > to > > > > > merit a release, but short enough that when we pass on a release > > we're > > > > > probably fine just waiting for another cycle to come around. The > > last > > > > > release was ~2 months ago and we have a good amount of stuff here, > > but > > > I > > > > > also don't expect two feature branches going in to be the norm. > > > > > > > > > > I'd expect whatever comes out of this thread to also be relatively > > > > > informal. At least right now, I don't feel like we need a rigid > > > schedule, > > > > > and I'd still like people to feel encouraged to propose a release, > > > > > particularly when there are a couple major features or critical > > fixes. > > > > > Alternatively, I would expect some of these discuss threads to > > > conclude, > > > > > "We should do a release, but let's wait a couple waits for these > > > tickets > > > > to > > > > > finish up" (e.g. like the Pcap query panel). > > > > > > > > > > Justin > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > >
