Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-08 Thread Dan Smith
> > @Alexander, I don't believe that we can use the "DISCUSS" thread to have > made a decision that we are going to do something. > We can and we should use DISCUSS threads to make decisions. The only things that actually need votes are releases and new committers/pmc members. Nothing else

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-08 Thread Udo Kohlmeyer
@Alexander, I don't believe that we can use the "DISCUSS" thread to have made a decision that we are going to do something. Imo, it gauges interest rather than making a decision. I would rather see the "VOTE" thread to be started, detailing the proposal and process how this will work. As I

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-08 Thread Alexander Murmann
Hi all, Given the overwhelmingly positive response, I added a release schedule page to the wiki: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Release+Schedule Given the many "+1"s in this thread, can this be seen as agreed or do we need a formal [VOTE] thread? On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 1:34

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-08 Thread Anthony Baker
It’s an ASF requirement that PMC’s shepherd releases through a prescribed set of practices. It doesn’t matter if a release is major, minor, or patch—they all must be voted and approved the the PMC. Anthony > On Oct 8, 2018, at 1:04 PM, John Blum wrote: > > Also, a huge +1 to Ken's

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-08 Thread John Blum
+1; a time-based approach also helps to keep scope in check (i.e. smaller changes and change sets), which leads to faster feedback (either fail faster, sooner or find out you are on the right track), and shows users/customers active progress/forward momentum, which is only a good thing. Also, a

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-08 Thread Pulkit Chandra
+1, It's important to keep in mind, we are talking fixed time releases and not scoped releases. That means we have to be comfortable with the fact that some features wont make it in a release even though they might be just about to finish. Downstream products that use Geode need this

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-05 Thread Michael Stolz
+1 on cutting in Nov. Seems like community could benefit from one more release this year. -- Mike Stolz Principal Engineer - Gemfire Product Manager Mobile: 631-835-4771 On Oct 5, 2018 8:45 AM, "Anthony Baker" wrote: > I’ve been advocating for a fixed release schedule for a long time. 3 >

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-05 Thread Diane Hardman
+1 to a regular cadence and starting with a 3-month cadence. As we learned earlier this year, monthly was too frequent to support our testing cycles and for users to update. On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Robert Houghton wrote: > +1 to Dan > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018, 09:27 Dan Smith wrote: > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-05 Thread Robert Houghton
+1 to Dan On Fri, Oct 5, 2018, 09:27 Dan Smith wrote: > Ok, I buy your arguments to cut the release branch 1 month ahead of time. > I'm fine with that plan, as long as we can stick to only putting critical > fixes on the release branch. Once the release branch is cut, it ships > without further

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-05 Thread Dave Barnes
If we go with more frequent releases, the number of available releases will ramp up quickly. What would be the best policy regarding earlier releases? The Geode website's Release page currently links to 1.7.0, 1.6.0, 1.5.0, and 1.4.0. Would it be prudent to adopt a policy (as suggested by Craig

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-05 Thread Kenneth Howe
+1 to releasing on a 3-month schedule and cutting the branch a month before the release. I’ve always felt that releasing based on content tends to prolong the test/release cycle. Some features are held up from getting released due to waiting for other features to be completed. Releasing on a

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-05 Thread Dan Smith
Ok, I buy your arguments to cut the release branch 1 month ahead of time. I'm fine with that plan, as long as we can stick to only putting critical fixes on the release branch. Once the release branch is cut, it ships without further changes unless we find new issues. -Dan On Fri, Oct 5, 2018

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-05 Thread Alexander Murmann
Robert and Sai, I think either release process can be stressful if your team doesn't understand that there is no faster button, but that the only lever is to cut scope (you can also compromise quality, but let's not do that). In either scenario there can be release pressure. To me the biggest

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-05 Thread Anthony Baker
I’ve been advocating for a fixed release schedule for a long time. 3 months seems like a good rate given the release overhead. +1 on cutting the next release branch in November and shooting for an early December v1.8.0 release. Anthony > On Oct 4, 2018, at 6:48 PM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote: >

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-04 Thread Sai Boorlagadda
I agree with Robert that we should release based on features that go in. I am not sure if Apache Kafka & Spark are a good reference for GEODE. These tools were evolving rapidly in the last couple of years and frequent releases would be good for a growing community. Should we do a patch release

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-04 Thread Robert Houghton
I have found it refreshing that the geode released cadence has been based on features being done, rather than a set schedule. I come from an environment where we had quarterly releases and monthly patches to all supported previous releases, and I can tell you that it became a grind. That being

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-04 Thread Ryan McMahon
+1 for scheduled releases and cutting the branch one month prior to release. Given the time it took to fully root out, classify, and solve issues with this 1.7 release, I think a month is the right amount of time between cutting the branch and releasing. If it ends up being too much or too

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-04 Thread Alexander Murmann
Anil, releasing every 3 months should give us 3 months of dev work. Don't forget that there will be one month during which the next release is already cut, but the vast majority of the work is going to the release after that. So while we cut 1.7 one month ago and release 1.7 today, we already have

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-04 Thread Anilkumar Gingade
If I remember from earlier discussion; the plan was to deliver a release once 3 months. But from the past release history we had difficulty in achieving that, either the features are not completely ready or the bug-fixes have taken more time. We need verify what is right for Apache Geode, 3, 4 or

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-04 Thread Nabarun Nag
+1 on the scheduled release and also on one month prior to release we cut the branch. @Dan I feel keeping a one month will give a very comfortable time frame to test + retest the release branch and we will be releasing a stable release candidate. For 1.7.0, it did take a month from cutting the

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-04 Thread Dan Smith
+1 I definitely like the idea of scheduled releases. I wonder if cutting the release branch a month ahead of time is overkill, but I guess we do seem to keep finding issues after the branch is cut. -Dan On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 1:25 PM Alexander Murmann wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I want to

[DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

2018-10-04 Thread Alexander Murmann
Hi everyone, I want to propose shipping Geode on a regular cadence. My concrete proposal is to ship Geode every 3 months on the first weekday. To make sure we hit that date we would cut the release 1 months prior to that day. *Why?* Knowing on what day the release will get cut and on what day we