On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Jonathan Haddad <[email protected]> wrote:
[ ... ] > If they're not close to finished now why even consider them for > the 4.0 release? They're so core they should be merged into trunk at the > beginning of the cycle for the follow up release in order to get as much > exposure as possible. This sounds right to me. Bigger, destabilizing changes should land at the beginning of the cycle; Setting up a mad rush at the end of a release cycle does not yield favorable results (we've done this, we know). > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:46 PM Nate McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > I'd like to see pluggable storage and transient replica tickets land, for >> > starters. >> >> I think both those features are, frankly, necessary for our future. On >> the other hand, they both have the following risks: >> 1. core behavioral changes >> 2. require changing a (relatively) large surface area of code >> >> We can aim to de-risk 4.0 by focusing on what we have now which is >> solid repair and NIO internode (maybe we move the 4.0 branch timeline >> up?), aiming for a 4.1 following soon-ish. >> >> Or we can go in eyes open and agree on a larger footprint 4.0. >> >> I'm on the fence, tbh (can't emphasize enough how big both those >> features will be). I just want everyone to know what we are getting >> into and that we are potentially impacting our goals of "stable" == >> "exciting." Unfortunately, when stability suffers things get "exciting" for all sorts of unintended reasons. I'm personally not umm, excited, by that prospect. -- Eric Evans [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
