On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Blake Eggleston <beggles...@apple.com> wrote:
> Clearly, we won’t get to this point right away, but it should definitely > be a goal. > I'm not entirely clear on why anyone would read in what I'm saying that it shouldn't be a goal. I'm a huge proponent of this and of putting emphasis on quality in general, and because it's Friday night and I'm tired, I'm gonna add that I think I have a bigger track record of actually acting on improving quality for Cassandra than anyone else that is putting word in my mouth. Mainly, I'm suggesting that we don't have to tie the existence of a clearly labeled stable branch (useful to user, especially newcomers) to future improvement in the "releasability" of trunk in our design of a new release cycle. If we do so, but releasability don't improve as quickly as we'd hope, we penalize users in the end. Adopting a release cycle that ensure said clearly labeled stable branch does exist no matter the rate of improvement to the level of "trunk" releasibility is feels safer, and doesn't preclude any effort in improving said releasibilty, nor re-evaluating this in 1-2 year to move to release stable releases from trunk directly if we have proven we're there. > > On September 16, 2016 at 9:04:03 AM, Sylvain Lebresne ( > sylv...@datastax.com) wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> > wrote: > > > > > This is a different mentality from having a "features" branch, where it's > > implied that at times it's acceptable that it not be stable. > > > I absolutely never implied that, though I willingly admit my choice of > branch > names may be to blame. I 100% agree that no releases should be done > without a green test board moving forward and if something was implicit > in my 'feature' branch proposal, it was that. > > Where we might not be in the same page is that I just don't believe it's > reasonable to expect the project will get any time soon in a state where > even a green test board release (with new features) meets the "can be > confidently put into production". I'm not even sure it's reasonable to > expect from *any* software, and even less so for an open-source > project based on volunteering. Not saying it wouldn't be amazing, it > would, I just don't believe it's realistic. In a way, the reason why I > think > tick-tock doesn't work is *exactly* because it's based on that unrealistic > assumption. > > Of course, I suppose that's kind of my opinion. I'm sure some will think > that the "historical trend" of release instability is simply due to a lack > of > effort (obviously Cassandra developers don't give a shit about users, that > must the simplest explanation). >
