Hi, I'm in big favor of having a hard release cycle on 6 weeks (minimum I'd actually prefer 4 ;) ) Regarding the thoughts about 3party dependencies, actually it's the reason we don't get our own bugfixes out fast right now. Actually I'd say screw it. No more waiting for 3rd party dependencies ... get the stuff out fast cause 4-6 weeks later you have the next release picking up the issue.
regards, Achim 2014-10-08 8:18 GMT+02:00 Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]>: > That's why we have an extend of 2 weeks to deal with other projects. > > Regards > JB > > On 10/08/2014 08:16 AM, Christian Schneider wrote: > >> Generally I agree that we should aim for such a cycle. >> I only hope it is possible as we depend a lot on other projects that we >> bundle. So a lot of the time a release waits on fixes or releases in >> upstream projects. >> >> Christian >> >> Am 08.10.2014 07:52, schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Users complained about the variable and long delays between Karaf >>> releases. It's a fair comment and it's something that we have to improve. >>> >>> I propose the following new policy about the releases cycle: >>> - for "active" branches (3.0.x and 2.4.x), I propose a release every 6 >>> weeks, with maximum extend to 8 weeks. >>> - for "eol" and "maintenance" branches (2.2.x and 2.3.x), it's "on >>> demand", no strong cycle there. >>> >>> WDYT ? >>> >>> If everybody agrees, I will update the releases schedule page on the >>> website. >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >> >> >> > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com > -- Apache Member Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & Project Lead blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> Software Architect / Project Manager / Scrum Master
