Practically speaking I think I agree with Anthony. I'm changing my vote
to +0 but I do still feel that we're not going to be following the
spirit of our major/minor/patch definitions. A quarterly release might
be a Minor release or it might be a Patch release, depending on whether
there are actually any functional changes. We should change those
definitions to match what we're actually doing.
On 10/10/18 9:35 AM, Anthony Baker wrote:
Practically speaking, a quarterly release cycle means there’s *always* some
feature addition or improvement included in the release. That’s why I agree
with the suggestion of a release cadence based on minor version bumps. See [1]
for the outcome of prior discussions on SemVer.
Anthony
[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Versioning+and+Branching
On Oct 10, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Ryan McMahon <mcmellaw...@apache.org> wrote:
I’m with Sai that it seems like we need to clear up our definitions of
minor versus patch releases. The referenced SemVer definition indicates
that any backwards compatible bug fix qualifies for a patch release. But
it was stated earlier that only security-related or critidal bug fixes
justify a patch release. I personally prefer SemVer’s definition, but it’s
up for debate.
Perhaps we can do 3-month release cycles, and determine whether the release
would be patch or minor based on the changes added since the last release
(bug fixes vs new functionality).
Ryan
