On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com> wrote: > In light of all this, my suggesting for a release cycle woud be: > - To have 3 branches: 'features', 'testing' and 'stable', with an X month > rotation: 'features' becomes 'testing' after X months and then 'stable' > after > X more, before getting EOL X months later. > - The feature branch gets everything. The testing branch only gets bug > fixes. > The stable branch only gets critical bug fixes. And imo, we should be very > strict on this (I acknowledge that there is sometimes a bit of > subjectivity on > whether something is a bug or an improvement, and if it's critical or > not, but > I think it's not that hard to get consensus if we're all reasonable > (though it > might worth agreeing on some rough but written guideline upfront)). > - We release on a short and fixed cadence of Y month(s) for both the > feature and > testing branch. For the stable branch, given that it already had X months > of > only bug fixes during the testing phase, one can hope critical fixes will > be > fairly rare, less than 1 per Y period on average). Further, it's supposed > to > be stable and fixes are supposed to be critical, so doing hot-fix releases > probably makes the most sense (though it probably only work if we're > indeed > strict on what is considered critical).
This seems pretty close to what Mck suggested; I think this could work. -- Eric Evans john.eric.ev...@gmail.com