> Op 2 augustus 2016 om 4:36 schreef John Burwell <john.burw...@shapeblue.com>: > > > All, > > First, thank you to Will for taking on 4.9 and getting it out the door. I > have updated the proposed release schedule [1] to reflect the release of > 4.9.0 on 1 August 2016. Please review the release schedule. If you have > questions or issues, please let me know. I hope we can come to a consensus > by the end of this week (5 August 2016), and remove the [PROPOSED] from the > title. Once we have consensus, I will consolidate the release section of > wiki to ensure that the process and schedule are clear. >
A truly honest answer from my side: I really don't care :) We've had way to many debates, -1s on proposals and re-iterating over already discussed proposals. We should release, fix bugs and release again. The longer the we wait between releases, the harder it gets. So I'm all in favor of the proposals, as long was we release more and discuss less :) Wido > Effective today (1 August 2017), master is open to accept commits for the > 4.10.0.0 release. For ease of reference, the proposed dates for the 4.10.0 > release are as follows: > > * Development (master open to features and defect fixes): 1 August 2016 - 11 > September 2016 > * Testing: 12 - 18 September 2016 > * RC Voting: 19 - 25 September 2016 > * Release: 26 September 2016 > > In addition, development of the first 4.9 and next 4.8 maintenance releases, > 4.9.1.0 and 4.8.2.0, has also started with the following proposed dates: > > * Development (defect fixes only): 1 - 14 August 2016 > * Testing: 15 - 21 August 2016 > * RC Voting: 16 - 28 August 2016 > * Release: 29 August 2016 > > Please submit defect fixes against the earliest supported branch in which the > defect occurs. We will forward merge the fix to newer supported branches. > > Finally, development of our first LTS release will start shortly. We are > discussing a potential change to the management of LTS. Hopefully, we will > resolve this question shortly, and open development on that release as well. > > In terms of PR review, I plan to begin reviewing PRs from oldest to newest. > My thinking is that the older a PR, the greater the divergence. Therefore, > addressing the oldest PRs first decreases the likelihood that we lose > contributions to bit rot. > > Thanks, > -John > > > [1]: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/%5BPROPOSAL%5D+2016-2017+Release+Cycle+and+Calendar<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/[PROPOSAL]+2016-2017+Release+Cycle+and+Calendar> > > john.burw...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London VA WC2N 4HSUK > @shapeblue > > >
