In my opinion, a major release is based on two simultaneous decisions: 1. Is it time; may be a year is a good time frame? (It's useless accumulating too much code that is not battle tested and then expect people to deploy it to production without experiencing a plethora of issues.)
2. Is there at least one "major feature" that is complete ? I think if we can answer yes to both these questions at any point in time, it's a good idea to cut the RC and ask people to start testing it. the only way forward for saving 2.0 at this point is to *make the branch and > spin the RC +1 On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > The only way forward for saving 2.0 at this point is to *make the branch > and spin the RC. *Just do it. Kick out by revert what obviously isn't > ready. Solicit help in getting partially finished things into working > state. Kick them out too if the help does not arrive. > > Maybe too much is in a half done state and the scale of effort for those > reverts is too high. Fine. Renumber master as 3.0, and make a branch-2 from > branch-1 and backport a select number of things from master into the new > branch-2. Then release. I do a variation of this for the $dayjob so would > be your man to turn to for driving this if that's the way forward. > > I know it's easy to recommend the labor of others. Depending on what we are > going to do I can talk to work about freeing up time to help. > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Phil Yang <yangzhe1...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > So my suggestion is cutting branch-x faster and have some fixed period, > > for > > > example, six month or one year? > > > > > > > > > You are right Phil. > > > > The Release Managers for the minor releases have been doing a good job > > keeping up a decent release cadence but we have an abysmal track record > > when it comes to pushing out majors. First we were afraid to commit -- > > witness how long it took us to get to a 1.0 -- and then pushing out the > 1.0 > > took a monster effort. 2.0 looks to be a repeat of the errors of 1.0. My > > sense is that 2.0 is beyond saving at this stage. > > > > Can we do 3.0 different? As per your suggestion? > > > > St.Ack > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely. - Raymond > Teller (via Peter Watts) > -- Thanks and Regards, Ashu Pachauri
