-0
It seems we have completely disregarded the *patch* version number. Does
this mean Geode versions will be *major*,*minor*? Can we then remove the
*patch* version on the release version?
In addition to this, should the test coverage not be sufficient enough
to allow "release when green"? I must agree with @Jacob, I would prefer
something a lot less formalized. If the community has contributed a
significant fix, should that not warrant an ad-hoc patch release? Or
what if the community has added functionality, that could "fill" a
single minor release by itself, should that not warrant a pre-emptive
release.
All these questions are not enough to warrant this effort to be blocked,
but I prefer those use cases to be considered for a more comprehensive
documentation effort, than what is currently on the wiki.
In addition to that, is a release with only bug fixes in it, really
still a worthy of minor release number, or does it not count as a patch
release?
--Udo
On 10/8/18 14:27, Jacob Barrett wrote:
+0
My preference is to release when there is something worth releasing rather
than arbitrary points in time but I don't hold that preference strongly
enough to spike this effort.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 2:24 PM Alexander Murmann <amurm...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
Hi everyone,
As discussed in "Predictable minor release cadence", I'd like us to find
agreement on releasing a new minor version every three months. There are
more details in the other thread and I should have captured everything
relevant on the wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Release+Schedule
There are also some discussions about patch releases. Let's please focus
this vote on the proposed minor release schedule and carry on other
discussions in the [DISCUSS] thread.
Thank you all!
