My understanding is three month cycle is a general guideline. As long as it's communicated to dev/user lists, drill dev/user community can know the time frame for next new release.
It makes sense to switch three month cycle, since it gives people more time to implement / test new features before a release. On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm +1 for communicating to the user community a particular expected > release cadence. It helps set expectations. I'm +0 on 3 months being what > is communicated. > > I'm -1 on this being a reason to vote down a release proposed by someone. > If a member of the PMC wants to start a release because they perceive a > need, they should be able to. A general release cadence is not a reason to > vote down a release. > > -- > Jacques Nadeau > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Parth Chandra <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As we discussed in the hangout today, based on the last few releases, it >> looks like a slightly longer time period between releases is probably >> called for. The 1.7 release was almost four months and folks had started >> asking questions about the release while the 1.8 release was done in much >> less time and we found quite a few show stopper issues at the last minute. >> It seems that a three month cycle is probably appropriate at this time >> since that does not keep folks waiting for a new release and also provides >> enough time for the team to test things thoroughly before a release. >> >> What does everyone think? >> >> Parth >>
