I am aligned here that we should not be firm on a date be flexible to get a
more stable release out.

But could someone explain to me how would we measure this stability? The
pipelines are green
and the community members have cherry-picked all issues that were critical.

Unless we have some process or measure to identify the stability there is
no way
we can pick a date whether its April 1st or earlier to create a release
candidate.

Sai

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 8:51 AM Michael Stolz <mst...@pivotal.io> wrote:

> I think this is exactly the right balance. Yay!
>
> --
> Mike Stolz
> Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Lead
> Mobile: +1-631-835-4771
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 11:48 AM Ryan McMahon <rmcma...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > +1 to prioritizing quality over releasing on the desired cadence.  The
> > quarterly release cadence is a good goal, but it shouldn't be a strict
> rule
> > if there is more work to be done to ensure good quality.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 8:02 AM Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > IMHO we start release work based on a quarterly schedule and we finish
> it
> > > based on meeting quality goals.  So right now I’m less worried about
> when
> > > the release will be done (because uncertainty) and more focused on
> > ensuring
> > > we have demonstrated stability on the release branch.  Hopefully that
> > will
> > > happen sooner than 4/1…but it could take longer too.
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Feb 28, 2019, at 6:00 PM, Alexander Murmann <amurm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > According to our wiki we were aiming for a March 1st release date for
> > our
> > > > 1.9 release. We cut the release branch about two weeks late and see
> > > unusual
> > > > amounts of merges still going into the branch. I propose that we give
> > > > ourselves some more time to validate what's there. My proposal is to
> > aim
> > > > for last week of March or maybe even week of April 1st.
> > > >
> > > > What do you all think?
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to