On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:37 PM Stefan Podkowinski <s...@apache.org> wrote:
> Maybe people would have preferred to know early about potential > deadlines, before investing a lot of time into "pet ticket" > contributions? Of course, that's fair. And I apologize for the term "pet ticket", I shouldn't have used it and didn't meant that to be condescending. I do personally think we should get back to a time-based release cadence, even if a relatively long one, so people know when the freeze is from the get go. But what's done is done, and at the point we are now, I continue to think freezing 4.0 rapidly (and note I suggested June 1, not right now, exactly to give a chance for at least a few basically finished tickets to get in). What you say also imo speaks more to the fact we have a "reviewer" problem, which has been mentioned before and do need to be discussed, but packing too much subjects in a single conversation is the surest way to get nowhere. And of course, let's me recall once more that 4.0 is hopefully not the end of the road. Missing 4.0 is just that, missing 4.0. -- Sylvain > It's hard enough to make assumptions about if and when > contributions make it into a release, but with feature freeze deadlines > falling from the sky any time, it's getting a pure gamble and I wouldn't > be surprised to see especially companies becoming more reluctant to > sponsor work on larger contributions. > > But I do agree with your statement to "make it clear what kind of > contributions are "preferred" at any given time". But really "any given > time", not just when it's convenient for us to have people help fix > testing, before they "may continue working on their pet tickets" again. > > > On 12.04.2018 11:37, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM Sankalp Kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> We can fix test after freezing if there are resources people are willing > >> to put. We need to gather support to see who can help with the 3 points > I > >> have mentioned and when. > >> > > > > Again though, without disagreeing with your points, those don't play into > > when we freeze. If we freeze tomorrow, even if it take 3 months to gather > > sufficient support for testing, there will still be less to test than if > we > > push the freeze in 3 months and more things are committed in that > > time-frame. And in fact, the sooner we freeze, the sooner the project is > > making the statement that people that are willing to contribute to the > > project should now do so helping testing rather than continuing working > on > > their pet ticket. And don't get me wrong, it's an open source project, we > > can't force anyone to do anything, so people may continue working on > there > > pet ticket even after freeze. But we can at least, as a project, make it > > clear what kind of contributions are "preferred" at any given time. > > > > > >> > >> On Apr 12, 2018, at 02:13, Sylvain Lebresne <lebre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>>> > >>>> I agree there's little point freezing if we can't even test the system > >>>> properly. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I'll mention that I really don't follow the logic of such claim. Why > >> can't > >>> we > >>> fix the testing of the system after freezing? In fact, isn't the whole > >>> point of freezing agreeing that it's high time to fix that? Isn't it > >> easier > >>> to fix tests (and focus on the testing environment if needs be) when > >>> things are frozen and code isn't changing from under you? > >>> > >>> PS: all the questions of this email are rhetorical. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Sylvain > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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 > >
