+1 I agree both that we should have a regular release schedule, and that a 3-month cycle in particular is a good one to aim for.
cheers –doug On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, at 12:23 AM, Ryan Blue wrote: > That's 3 of us, at least! > > Are there concerns out there about setting a goal like this? I honestly > expected more support for saying we'd ideally like to release every 3 > months. I think it's both necessary and something we can get done. And > support for the idea doesn't mean you're signing up to be RM or to fix > licensing issues. :) > > rb > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 5:13 PM, S G <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 for quarterly releases ! > > > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Thiruvalluvan MG < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > +1. > > > Thanks > > > Thiru > > > > > > On Sunday, 17 April 2016 5:45 AM, Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > It's been about 3 months since we released Avro 1.8.0 and we've already > > > accumulated several fixes that we should get out in a release. Sean > > > suggested it a few days ago, but I'm not sure if everyone saw that > > thread. > > > Anyone interested in being the release manager for 1.8.1? > > > > > > I think we should set a goal of a release about once each quarter. If we > > > let ourselves go 18 months between releases, then contributors can't use > > > their work soon enough to continue caring and contributing. > > > > > > I think a quarterly release goal is a good first step toward making the > > > project more contributor-friendly. For example, we usually have good > > > participation getting ready for releases so it's a good excuse to get > > some > > > reviews done in addition to getting committed fixes out the door. > > > > > > Thoughts and comments? > > > > > > rb > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Ryan Blue > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Ryan Blue > Software Engineer > Netflix
