On 05/29/2016 10:08 PM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Shyam wrote:
On 05/19/2016 10:25 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
Once every 3 months i.e. option 3 sounds good to me.
+1 from my end.
Every 2 months seems to be a bit too much,
30.05.2016 05:08, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay написав:
It would perhaps be worthwhile to extend this release timeline/cadence
discussion into (a) End-of-Life definition and invocation (b) whether
a 'long term support' (assuming that is what LTS is) is of essentially
any value to users of GlusterFS.
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Shyam wrote:
> On 05/19/2016 10:25 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
>>
>> Once every 3 months i.e. option 3 sounds good to me.
>
>
> +1 from my end.
>
> Every 2 months seems to be a bit too much, 4 months is still fine, but gives
> us 1 in 3
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Shyam wrote:
> On 05/19/2016 10:25 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
>>
>> Once every 3 months i.e. option 3 sounds good to me.
>
>
> +1 from my end.
>
> Every 2 months seems to be a bit too much, 4 months is still fine, but gives
> us 1 in
On 05/19/2016 10:25 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
Once every 3 months i.e. option 3 sounds good to me.
+1 from my end.
Every 2 months seems to be a bit too much, 4 months is still fine, but
gives us 1 in 3 to pick the LTS, I like 1:4 odds better for the LTS,
hence the 3 months (or
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Raghavendra Talur wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Kaushal M wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Kaushal M wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Raghavendra Talur
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Kaushal M wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Kaushal M wrote:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Raghavendra Talur
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Kaushal M
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Kaushal M wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Raghavendra Talur wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Kaushal M wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm in favour of a stable release every 2 months and
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Raghavendra Talur wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Kaushal M wrote:
>>
>> I'm in favour of a stable release every 2 months and an LTS once a
>> year (option 2).
>
>
> +1
>
>>
>>
>> As Oleksander already
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Kaushal M wrote:
> I'm in favour of a stable release every 2 months and an LTS once a
> year (option 2).
>
+1
>
> As Oleksander already suggested, I'm in favour of having well defined
> merge windows, freeze dates and testing period.
> (A
I'm in favour of a stable release every 2 months and an LTS once a
year (option 2).
As Oleksander already suggested, I'm in favour of having well defined
merge windows, freeze dates and testing period.
(A slightly modified timeline from Oleksander's proposal follows)
For every 2 month window,
- 1
A bit late but better than never. My vote is for option 2.
~Atin
On 05/18/2016 07:19 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
> [Adding gluster-users]
>
> I would like to wrap this poll by the next community meeting on 25th
> May. Can you please weigh in with your opinions on the options
> provided by Aravinda?
On 13 May 2016 at 13:46, Aravinda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Based on the discussion in last community meeting and previous discussions,
>
> 1. Too frequent releases are difficult to manage.(without dedicated
> release manager)
> 2. Users wants to see features early for testing or
[Adding gluster-users]
I would like to wrap this poll by the next community meeting on 25th
May. Can you please weigh in with your opinions on the options
provided by Aravinda?
Thanks!
Vijay
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Aravinda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Based on the
My 2 cents on timings etc.
Rationale:
1. deliver new features to users as fast as possible to get the feedback;
2. leave an option of using LTS branch for those who do not want update too
often.
Definition:
* "stable release" — .0 tag that receives critical bugfixes and security
updates for
15 matches
Mail list logo