+1 I would be happy to join the team. On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Jamo Luhrsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 from me as well, and I would like to be part of this subgroup to plan > the 24week release. > not that I would lobby for 22 weeks of testing or anything. :) > > JamO > > On 02/10/2017 11:01 AM, Colin Dixon wrote: > > I count 5 TSC members on this thread in favor of the twice a year > release cadence. I also think that OPNFV targets twice a > > year and OpenECOMP is like to do the same. Are there people that are > willing to sit down and look over the work we've done in > > the past at this and providing a recommendation on what choices we > should make to go from ~8 month releases to 24-week releases? > > > > I think there's a lot of good starting material to work with, but it > would be good if some subset of the TSC could do some > > work offline and make a cogent recommendation. > > > > --Colin > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:35 PM, Luis Gomez <[email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]>> wrote: > > > > +1, twice a year. > > > >> On Feb 9, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Thanh Ha <[email protected] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc < > https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > TSC mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc < > https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > TSC mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc > > > _______________________________________________ > TSC mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc > -- Thanks Anil
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
