I'm also a fan of the 2-3 month time frame for releases. And I agree it fits nicely with our board report. That said, I think we should minimally kick off a DISCUSS at least every 2 months per the recommendations above. If it's warranted, great. If not, then we bring it up at a stated later time for re-evaluation.
Fwiw, some upcoming features post-0.6.0 that I'm seeing which are also large-ish and will fit nicely into the next cycle (pending completion, of course): 1. NiFi Metron parsers 2. Profiler enhancements - bootstrapping, etc. 3. Knox SSO On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:10 AM Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote: > Strictly selfishly, I'd love for a release to happen quickly enough to have > something to announce to the board during the reports. Once every 2 months > or when a sufficiently complicated change happens sounds like a sensible > cadence. > > I very much support a "how do we get to 1.0" discussion, maybe as a > separate thread? > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:56 AM zeo...@gmail.com <zeo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I'm a fan of a hybrid time/feature-based cadence. Something like "When 3 > > months has passed since our last release, or a sufficiently complicated > > change has been introduced to master (like merging a FB), a discuss > thread > > is started". I'm primarily thinking of what the upgrade path looks like > > (more on that in a "how do we get to 1.0" discuss). > > > > Jon > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:02 AM Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > In concert with the discuss thread on a potential 0.6.0 release, I'd > also > > > like start a discussion about our release cadence. We've generally > been > > > pretty relaxed around doing releases, and I'm curious what people's > > > thoughts are on adopting a somewhat more regular schedule. > > > > > > Couple questions I think are relevant > > > 1. Is this something we should work towards and, if we do, how do we > want > > > to go about it? > > > > > > - "Whenever someone feels like pushing out a discuss thread"? > > > - "Let's just start a discuss thread every X and if we want to > release > > > we release"? > > > - "let's try to get a release out every X and what's on the bus is > on > > > the bus"? > > > - Something else? > > > > > > 2. Assuming we do want to do more regular releases, what's the > timeframe > > > we'd like to shoot for? > > > > > > Personally, I'd like to just start a discuss thread regularly, with the > > > built-in expectation that not every thread should necessarily lead to a > > > release. I don't want to be forcing release overhead when there's not > > > enough to merit a release, but releasing more often than we often do > now > > > would provide a lot of values to users. > > > > > > In terms of timeframe, I tend to think a 2-3 month cadence for the > > threads > > > is reasonable. It's long enough to potentially accrue enough features > to > > > merit a release, but short enough that when we pass on a release we're > > > probably fine just waiting for another cycle to come around. The last > > > release was ~2 months ago and we have a good amount of stuff here, but > I > > > also don't expect two feature branches going in to be the norm. > > > > > > I'd expect whatever comes out of this thread to also be relatively > > > informal. At least right now, I don't feel like we need a rigid > schedule, > > > and I'd still like people to feel encouraged to propose a release, > > > particularly when there are a couple major features or critical fixes. > > > Alternatively, I would expect some of these discuss threads to > conclude, > > > "We should do a release, but let's wait a couple waits for these > tickets > > to > > > finish up" (e.g. like the Pcap query panel). > > > > > > Justin > > > > > -- > > > > Jon > > >
