Seriously, what's the rush to branch? Do we all love merging so much we
want to do a few more times just for the sake of merging? If nothing
diverges, there's nothing gained from the branch, and if it did diverge, we
add work for no real gain.

Beyond that, I still don't like June 1. Validating releases is hard. It
sounds easy to drop a 4.1 and ask people to validate again, but it's a hell
of a lot harder than it sounds. I'm not saying I'm a hard -1, but I really
think it's too soon. 50'ish days is too short to draw a line in the sand,
especially as people balance work obligations with Cassandra feature

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:18 PM, Nate McCall <> wrote:

> A lot of good points and everyone's input is really appreciated.
> So it sounds like we are building consensus towards June 1 for 4.0
> branch point/feature freeze and the goal is stability. (No one has
> come with a hard NO anyway).
> I want to reiterate Sylvain's point that we can do whatever we want in
> terms of dropping a new feature 4.1/5.0 (or whatev.) whenever we want.
> In thinking about this, what is stopping us from branching 4.0 a lot
> sooner? Like now-ish? This will let folks start hacking on trunk with
> new stuff, and things we've gotten close on can still go in 4.0
> (Virtual tables). I guess I'm asking here if we want to disambiguate
> "feature freeze" from "branch point?" I feel like this makes sense.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Reply via email to