On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Dan Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > This is looking like a nice upgrade. > > What does the release pipeline/process usually look like? Something to the > effect of "keep releasing alphas until they're stable, then release a stable > version"?
Yeah. Major new features will also go in a parallel branch at this point, should one materialize, that will constitute v0.8. I'm not sure what kinds of people are running the Alpha/Beta/RC/Release.[0-n] so I'm guessing on how fast to proceed. I probably err towards the "too slow" side just because of the holidays and some other uses of my time at the moment. What would get me to accelerate this process would be positive reports of people using the alpha and pretty good confidence that crucial backup and restore mechanisms are working as expected, and perhaps also that the 'delete' operators haven't developed a tendency to be overzealous. These are not regressions that have proved particularly common, but as a disaster recovery program it would seem best to ward off users that may have the temptation to install this new code without testing the backup *and* restore: that's what I'm trying to get across with the "Alpha" designation. There are a few things I'd like to see before Beta, but I'm not dead-set on these if it looks like it's not going to happen in a timely manner: * Documenting how to use Swift (but the number of backends is making the existing documentation format harder to deal with, so this is harder than it sounds to do well). * I have been working on and off on some integration test stuff and I'd like to get it in a state to be committed. It won't poke any of the WAL-E mechanism as seen in production in any significant way. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "wal-e" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
