+1, twice a year. > On Feb 9, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Thanh Ha <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > +1 > > Regards, > > Ryan Goulding > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Andre Fredette <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Colin Dixon <[email protected] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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 > <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 > <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 > <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 > > _______________________________________________ > TSC mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
