Hi Kevin - Thanks for the response.
I agree that the cadence for patch releases makes less sense than for feature bearing releases. We should strive to get the latest fixes in the hands of the community in as timely a manner as possible and shouldn't allow feature development to delay that very much. Of course, the more critical bug/s the sooner we need to get it out. At the same time, the time between feature bearing releases should be shortened as well. thanks, --larry On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Kevin Minder <[email protected]> wrote: > #1 I'm +1 > There have been a few important issues resolved after 0.5.0 was released > that should be made available as quickly as possible. > > #2 I'm not sure > I think patch releases should be for critical bug fixes. Now if you are > suggesting a more frequent release cadence I can get behind that but this > would mean getting 0.6.0 out sooner rather than an 0.5.2. Now of course if > we find some non-feature critical fixes that we want to bundle into an > 0.5.2 that could make sense but not based on any cadence. > > > > On 11/7/14 12:17 PM, larry mccay wrote: > >> All - >> >> Now that we have delivered our 0.5.0 release, we need to consider our next >> couple releases. >> >> We should first consider preparing for an 0.5.1 release to accommodate any >> issues that crop up with the latest available release. >> >> I propose (1): creating a branch within the next day or so. This will >> allow >> us greater control over those changes that address bugs for 0.5.1 and >> those >> that add improvements or features destined for 0.6.0 (or 1.0.0 maybe?). >> >> We should target a release for an 0.5.1 version in a couple weeks time. >> >> I also propose (2): that we continue with such a cadence for releasing >> patch releases. >> >> We will discuss some of the work targeted for the 0.6.0 release in a >> follow >> up DISCUSS but I think that a couple of the areas to focus on will be >> performance improvements, developer experience and new >> authentication/federation provider support. >> >> What are your thoughts - especially on the proposals 1 and 2 above? >> >> thanks, >> >> --larry >> >> > > -- > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity > to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, > privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or > forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately > and delete it from your system. Thank You. >
