Yes, might be worthy of a different thread. Do you want to start that off? For 1. I think the cut off should be the release date? For 2. We should probably have a separate discussion for this :-) I think for the current sentry contributions pace, may be every 3-4 months?
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Lenni Kuff <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry for hijacking this thread, perhaps we should split it off to have a > separate discussion around releases? You bring up a good point. It seems > like there are two items to discuss (that are related): > > 1) What is the criteria (testing, docs, etc) for a feature to get merged to > trunk? For docs related items we could have a period after cutting the > release branch that we add any docs that are missing. > 2) What should our release cadence be? > > If we can solve 1) then we can release based on whatever is currently in > trunk. > > Thanks, > Lenni > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Sravya Tirukkovalur <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > In my opinion having roughly regular release dates is good, but it would > > also be good to make sure features which go into these releases are > > reasonably complete and have sufficient test coverage and documentation > so > > that the release itself is high quality and consumable. We are usually ok > > with completeness and testing, but we tend to fall behind in terms of > > documentation. By doing so, I am ok if we push the release a few weeks if > > need be. What do you think? > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Lenni Kuff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Do we want to drive releases by feature sets or should we set regular > > > release dates and include whatever makes those date? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Lenni > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Sravya Tirukkovalur < > [email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 for discussing release updates. > > > > > > > > I think it may help to have a list of features/improvements which are > > > going > > > > in 1.7.0 before hand, so that we can discuss which of these are > > complete > > > > (in terms of functionality/ testing/ documentation). We should either > > > track > > > > the remaining jiras for 1.7.0 and get them in, or move the feature > > itself > > > > to next release? I just moved the pending jiras to 1.8.0 and here is > > how > > > > the current release notes look like for 1.7.0: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12333348&styleName=Html&projectId=12314720&Create=Create&atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED%7C3b77d94d8cd2c79d6254dea938861fe25ad62f39%7Clin > > > > > > > > Seems like we will need to fix the issue types for some of the jiras, > > > right > > > > now I only see Sentry-906 as the only new feature :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Hao Hao <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > Tomorrow is the March monthly hangout. Since we are planning to do > > > Sentry > > > > > 1.7.0 release, I propose to discuss it as a part of tomorrow’s > > agenda. > > > > Any > > > > > other suggestions for the topics you want to discuss? Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Hao > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sravya Tirukkovalur > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sravya Tirukkovalur > > > -- Sravya Tirukkovalur
