+1

On 4/4/18, 5:48 PM, "Jeff Jirsa" <jji...@gmail.com> wrote:

    Earlier than I’d have personally picked, but I’m +1 too
    
    
    
    -- 
    Jeff Jirsa
    
    
    > On Apr 4, 2018, at 5:06 PM, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > 
    > Top-posting as I think this summary is on point - thanks, Scott! (And
    > great to have you back, btw).
    > 
    > It feels to me like we are coalescing on two points:
    > 1. June 1 as a freeze for alpha
    > 2. "Stable" is the new "Exciting" (and the testing and dogfooding
    > implied by such before a GA)
    > 
    > How do folks feel about the above points?
    > 
    > 
    >> Re-raising a point made earlier in the thread by Jeff and affirmed by 
Josh:
    >> 
    >> –––
    >> Jeff:
    >>>> A hard date for a feature freeze makes sense, a hard date for a release
    >>>> does not.
    >> 
    >> Josh:
    >>> Strongly agree. We should also collectively define what "Done" looks 
like
    >>> post freeze so we don't end up in bike-shedding hell like we have in the
    >>> past.
    >> –––
    >> 
    >> Another way of saying this: ensuring that the 4.0 release is of high 
quality is more important than cutting the release on a specific date.
    >> 
    >> If we adopt Sylvain's suggestion of freezing features on a "feature 
complete" date (modulo a "definition of done" as Josh suggested), that will 
help us align toward the polish, performance work, and dog-fooding needed to 
feel great about shipping 4.0. It's a good time to start thinking about the 
approaches to testing, profiling, and dog-fooding various contributors will 
want to take on before release.
    >> 
    >> I love how Ben put it:
    >> 
    >>> An "exciting" 4.0 release to me is one that is stable and usable
    >>> with no perf regressions on day 1 and includes some of the big
    >>> internal changes mentioned previously.
    >>> 
    >>> This will set the community up well for some awesome and exciting
    >>> stuff that will still be in the pipeline if it doesn't make it to 4.0.
    >> 
    >> That sounds great to me, too.
    >> 
    >> – Scott
    > 
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
    > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
    > 
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
    For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
    
    



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Reply via email to