Thanks for organizing Lewis, sorry for the late replies. Looking at the frequency of our updates I'd suggest quarterly, or bi-annual releases. If we can keep the master branch stable (which should really be a goal of ours) then hopefully it's not too much work to create the releases. I do appreciate that there's probably some effort required to create release notes + documentation. Hopefully JIRA will be able to help us create some of this documentation.
I'd agree that we should shoot for a 6.1 release fairly soon. I'll review the PRs that came from our side early after the Apache switch. They should probably have JIRA tickets tracking the changes with fix version assigned as 6.1. -Kellen On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Tom Barber <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Matt > > Over on OODT our releases are few and far between, although that said, > I've been trying to increase the frequency even if they are very minor. The > main reason being, if someone commits some code, they don't want to wait 12 > months for it to hit a stable release! So you might say yearly major > releases and patch releases at sporadic points inbetween to include patches > people have submitted, this also keeps drive by committers interested > because if they get some stuff into the codebase they then may commit more, > rather than say "well I submitted a fix for issue x ages ago and its got > notwhere". Releases don't need to be set in stone, but I would try and > keep them ticking over. > > Just my own 2 cents. > > Tom > > -------------- > > Director Meteorite.bi - Saiku Analytics Founder > Tel: +44(0)5603641316 > > (Thanks to the Saiku community we reached our Kickstart > < > http://kickstarter.com/projects/2117053714/saiku-reporting-interactive-report-designer/ > > > goal, but you can always help by sponsoring the project > <http://www.meteorite.bi/products/saiku/sponsorship>) > > On 23 June 2016 at 21:56, Matt Post <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Lewis, > > > > Sorry for taking some time to get back to you. I think the roadmap looks > > great. One thing, though, is that the Amazon folks and I have discussed > > making a number of backwards-incompatible changes in an effort to > modernize > > some pieces of the code. This would have to do with things like the > config > > file format, a totally new pipeline based on duct tape, and some other > > ideas. We think those changes would be suitable for a 7.0 release (major > > version number change signals backwards incompatibility). > > > > I think we've been doing some good work on improving Joshua, but at the > > same time, I think the release cycle is still little too accelerated for > > me. I would like to push back to semi- yearly or even yearly releases, > with > > bug fixes in between. However, I'm also curious how this might affect our > > ability to move out of incubation. Do you have any thoughts on this? > > > > The major downsides to releases are documentation. It's just hard to find > > the time to do. > > > > My own thoughts for what I'd like to do: > > > > - Maybe a 6.1 release (soon, to get it out of the way? or otherwise this > > fall?), where we formalize the Apache move and maybe formalize the > release > > of a handful of language packs, without a lot of other changes > > > > - Write a linux.com article advertising this, hopefully attracting some > > attention > > > > - Shoot for a 7.0 release with many of the changes we've discussed (some > > offline). If we get a good showing at MT Marathon in Prague this year, > that > > could be a good time to get all of that in order. > > > > - Start getting to work on a version of Joshua that swaps out the core > > decoder for a neural approach > > > > matt > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 2016, at 4:13 PM, Tom Barber <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > I would volunteer some cycles for multi model support in the server and > > an > > > improved rest interface and basic UI for end user interaction if you > > fancy > > > it. > > > > > > -------------- > > > > > > Director Meteorite.bi - Saiku Analytics Founder > > > Tel: +44(0)5603641316 > > > > > > (Thanks to the Saiku community we reached our Kickstart > > > < > > > http://kickstarter.com/projects/2117053714/saiku-reporting-interactive-report-designer/ > > > > > > goal, but you can always help by sponsoring the project > > > <http://www.meteorite.bi/products/saiku/sponsorship>) > > > > > > On 23 June 2016 at 21:10, Lewis John Mcgibbney < > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Folks, > > >> Anyone have any comments on this? > > >> Seeing that the Maven multimodule project seems to be taking flight, > it > > >> would be nice to see where the roadmap is going? > > >> Any comments would be great. Also, I'm kinda lost as to what is > > happening > > >> with Jira but it looks like it is not really being used for much. > > >> Thanks > > >> > > >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Lewis John Mcgibbney < > > >> [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Folks, > > >>> I've just smartened up Jira a bit with our Roadmap being defined as > > >> follows > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/joshua/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:roadmap-panel > > >>> > > >>> Right now there are only 14/14 issues as RESOLVED for 6.1. This is > > false > > >>> as I know that many more issues have been addressed however I don't > > think > > >>> that Jira tickets have been created for all changes to the source > code. > > >>> Maybe moving forward we could open Jira issues and link them to the > > >> Github > > >>> tickets via commit messages? > > >>> > > >>> Additionally, everything that was currently UNRESOLVED has merely > been > > >>> pushed to 6.2. If this is not what is required then please reassign > the > > >> fix > > >>> version for any ticket(s) to 6.1 and we can fix. > > >>> > > >>> Finally, are there any mitigating factor which would prevent a 6.1 > > >> release > > >>> candidate being prepared right now? > > >>> Thanks > > >>> Lewis > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> *Lewis* > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> *Lewis* > > >> > > > > >
