I think moving to a twice a year schedule is a good idea. Thanh
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <[email protected]> wrote: > Alignment the release schedules with OpenStack & other communities makes > sense. > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Ryan Goulding <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Regards, >> >> Ryan Goulding >> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Andre Fredette <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Colin Dixon <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> From today's TSC call, it sounds like 1.) is more technical and >>>> probably either wants an ongoing call or mailing list thread of it's own to >>>> go over the technical needs and how we might take a whack at it. >>>> >>>> --Colin >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Colin Dixon <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I know it feels way too early, but it's actually getting to be >>>>> relatively late to talk about planning the Nitrogen release. I know the >>>>> last few releases, we've talked about making pretty substantial changes >>>>> and >>>>> just ran out of steam to implement them. >>>>> >>>>> This time, I'm going to propose something slightly different. Why >>>>> don't we try one or two more minor changes. The two relatively simple >>>>> changes that come to my mind first are: >>>>> >>>>> 1.) Moving to having a common version range for each artifact rather >>>>> than a common version. That is moving from x.y.z-SNAPSHOT to x.y.[z,z+1) >>>>> or >>>>> maybe even x.[y,y+1) and then have merge jobs publish both SNAPSHOT as >>>>> well >>>>> as release artifacts with a build number as fourth part of the version. >>>>> I'm >>>>> sure that there are details I'm glossing over (and I know of a few), but >>>>> it >>>>> would be a relatively simple step toward decoupling some of our release >>>>> process. Some information on this is in an old thread here too: >>>>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/tsc/2016-July/005536.html >>>>> >>>>> 2.) Moving to a twice a year release process. This would help planning >>>>> by not having our release dates shift randomly around each year, fall more >>>>> in line with other open source projects, get us cycling a bit faster, and >>>>> maybe also have some more discipline. I talked about it a bit before here: >>>>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/tsc/2016-July/005665.html >>>>> >>>> >>> As many probably know, OVS is moving to a twice a year release schedule >>> and is aligning with OpenStack: >>> https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2016-November/324752.html >>> >>> Many of our projects depend on OVS and also work with OpenStack. It >>> seems that a similar alignment would be beneficial for ODL. >>> >>> Andre >>> >>
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
