On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
>> I'm not opposed, but I'd rather see us try a longer release cycle
>> before introducing too much rigor here.
>
> I had hoped that my suggestion above would not be felt as being
> rigor
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
> I'm not opposed, but I'd rather see us try a longer release cycle
> before introducing too much rigor here.
I had hoped that my suggestion above would not be felt as being
rigorous :(. At least that was not the intention.
But to be clear, I do
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> +1 too. I also think it's a much more reasonable target.
>
> And I think that making our release schedule more reliable should be a
> strong part of that change. For that, I wonder if having a more
> organized QA period (basically a more
+1 too. I also think it's a much more reasonable target.
And I think that making our release schedule more reliable should be a
strong part of that change. For that, I wonder if having a more
organized QA period (basically a more codified release schedule) could
be beneficial. I won't hide that in
I am very +1 on this. I think Cassandra has matured to a point that
warrants this.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> After the 0.7 release we decided to shoot for a fixed four-month
> release cycle. I think now is a good time to re-evaluate this, and
> possibly change to
