On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, Ken Dreyer wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Abhishek Lekshmanan <abhishek@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > One of the issues with a one month approach is the smaller amount of > > backport prs that would go in, at the current rate we're merging in the > > range of 5-10 prs per week, because we gang up a bunch of backport prs > > and these go through the qe and related analysis etc. > > I'm ok with that rate of change. Small, regular releases reduces the > impact of regressions in the stable branches too. > > > If we > > are going for a calendar based schedule, we need the subteams to be more > > active and making sure that the backport prs they need are getting the > > required attention every week or so. > > If you're not getting attention you need on specific backport PRs that > are urgent and important, please let me know directly and I can hound > people :) I like the simple and regular 1-month cadence. We can publish it on a Ceph Release Calendar so there is visibility and go from there. I expect we may initially have some trouble with coverage, both for the backports and the testing. However, it seems like somewhat separate issue, and one that we haven't actually invested in effort in addressing: we haven't made any concerted effort to recruit new contributors to help with backports or identify other folks besides Yuri to run the tests. None of it is rocket science and is a good opportunity to contribute meaningfully for those without a lot of existing Ceph development experience. Announcing/publicizing a new planned cadence is a also good opportunity to solicit the help that we'll want to make it work well. 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
