for folks who'd like follow along, YETUS-228.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Chris Nauroth <[email protected]> wrote: > I was thinking of it more like my other projects, where I typically do a > small QA pass over the release, specifically testing several of the new > patches and regression testing existing features that have a recent > history of quality problems. That kind of RC validation typically takes > me multiple hours to complete. > > I'm happy to try the weekly cadence and possibly settle into a shorter > validation process. We can tune the process later if we start to see the > weekly votes fizzle. > > +1 overall for the plan. > > --Chris Nauroth > > > > > On 12/10/15, 10:53 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Chris Nauroth >><[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 2. If I'm reading this correctly, you're suggesting weekly releases if >>> there are code changes. With only 6 PMC members who have binding votes, >>> it's a lot to ask of a small number of people. I see a risk of many of >>> these votes fizzling out and expiring without getting enough binding >>> votes. How would you feel about a longer regular cadence, such as >>> monthly, with the option to invoke additional out-of-band releases as >>> needed for critical fixes? >>> >> >>I'm not sure. For most of the projects I'm involved in, I'd agree. But >>for Yetus we dog food almost everything. At the time of a RC, it seems >>like the only thing to do is check hashes and signatures on two files. >> >>How much time would that be? We won't really know until we start >>having them, I suppose. If it's ~10 minutes, is that too much? >> >
