On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, Erwan Velu wrote: > I was just wondering why not offering the packages under an unsupported versioning to let some users testing the incoming release ? > > That would have the benefit to let some advanced users or CI's testing the incoming release in an easy fashion during that window. > When the time window is over, the product is released and the versioning is set accordingly. You effectively already get that if you pull the latest branch name build from shaman (and that's what the test infrastructure is doing). We could publicize that build, perhaps, when we announce that we're moving from the merging to testing phase? sage > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Abhishek Lekshmanan" <abhishek@xxxxxxxx> > À: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Envoyé: Lundi 13 Août 2018 17:36:20 > Objet: Release cadence revisited > > > After discussing with Nathan again on this commonly revisited topic, > this is yet another attempt at attempting a monthly release cadence. > > We currently have two releases in queue, the current mimic release and > the old stable luminous release. We could aim for cutoff dates for pr > submissions on the branches as a fixed date every month, say 15th for > luminous, and end of month for mimic. We could add this to the public > ceph community calendar, so that everyone is aware, and it is assumed > that the releases are auto approved for qe after the date, though > initially we can try sending remainder mails or so. After the cutoff > date, final qe begins, and for the existing prs on this branch, we block > merges by increasing the reviewer count to 20 or so (as suggested by > sage in an earlier thread) until the release announcements are out > > This also means more work for the backports team and QE, hopefully we > can get more volunteers. > > Also, in the current state of things the luminous queue is almost empty, > so we could try taking the current luminous branch into QE 15th of this > month itself, if the leads are ok or we could wait until end of week or > so if necessary. > > Thoughts, opinions? > > -- > Abhishek > >
