On 07/29/2014 06:11 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
We've talked a bit about moving to a ~4 month (instead of 3 month)
cadence. I'm still inclined in this direction because it means fewer
stable releases that we will be maintaining and a longer and (hopefully)
more productive interval to do real work in between.
The other key point is that we don't want a repeat of the firefly delay.
I think we should stay as close to a train model as we can. If something
isn't ready by freeze, let it wait for the next cycle. We shouldn't be
cramming things in at the end, especially big things. As a general rule,
big things should be merged early in the cycle so that we have lots of
time to shake out the issues that only come out of lots of testing and
aren't obvious from code review.
Anyway, how about:
Freeze Approx Release
Giant Mon Sep 1 Mon Sep 29
Hammer Mon Jan 4 Mon Feb 2
That gives us another month for Giant, then September to shake out
anything issues. And then three full months before the Hammer freeze.
What say ye?
6 months. ;)
sage
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
