From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Nelson Subject: Re: giant and hammer dates Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:20:23 -0500 Message-ID: <53D82C37.8020705@inktank.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-ig0-f180.google.com ([209.85.213.180]:59387 "EHLO mail-ig0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751811AbaG2XUP (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2014 19:20:15 -0400 Received: by mail-ig0-f180.google.com with SMTP id l13so1863929iga.1 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:20:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sage Weil , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org On 07/29/2014 06:11 PM, Sage Weil wrote: > We've talked a bit about moving to a ~4 month (instead of 3 month) > cadence. I'm still inclined in this direction because it means fewer > stable releases that we will be maintaining and a longer and (hopefully) > more productive interval to do real work in between. > > The other key point is that we don't want a repeat of the firefly delay. > I think we should stay as close to a train model as we can. If something > isn't ready by freeze, let it wait for the next cycle. We shouldn't be > cramming things in at the end, especially big things. As a general rule, > big things should be merged early in the cycle so that we have lots of > time to shake out the issues that only come out of lots of testing and > aren't obvious from code review. > > Anyway, how about: > > Freeze Approx Release > Giant Mon Sep 1 Mon Sep 29 > Hammer Mon Jan 4 Mon Feb 2 > > That gives us another month for Giant, then September to shake out > anything issues. And then three full months before the Hammer freeze. > > What say ye? 6 months. ;) > sage > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >