+1 on the versioning scheme and the rest.
-- Jacques Nadeau CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Parth Chandra <[email protected]> wrote: > Completely agree with you on allowing a release if the need is felt. The > general release cadence would provide predictability, as you said, but we > absolutely should be able to do releases with fixes if we need to. > I would suggest we use a numbering of *major.minor* for the regular > releases and a *major.minor.revision *for any release outside of that. > > > 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 > > > > > >
