[Gluster-Maintainers] 3.8 Plan changes - proposal

[Shyam]

On 01/06/2016 09:44 PM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am considering the following changes for 3.8:
>
> 1. Include 4.0 features such as NSR, dht2, glusterd2.0 & eventing as
> experimental features in 3.8. 4.0 features are shaping up reasonably
> well and it would be nice to have them packaged in 3.8 so that we can
> get more meaningful feedback early on. As 4.0 features mature, we can
> push them out through subsequent 3.8.x releases to derive iterative
> feedback.

Agree, this would be good as we can start getting some early feedback.

>
> 2. Ensure that most of our components have tests in distaf by 3.8. I
> would like us to have more deterministic pre-release testing for 3.8 and
> having tests in distaf should help us in accomplishing that goal.

Agreed, this thread [1] on our dependencies and also compatibility with 
older releases would help in better testing.

Do we know the effort required to make this happen? That can be a 
determining factor in the delay or release goals.

>
> 3. Add "forward compatibility" section to all feature pages proposed for
> 3.8 so that we carefully review the impact of a feature on all upcoming
> Gluster.next features.

Agreed, and needed.

>
> 4. Have Niels de Vos as the maintainer for 3.8 with immediate effect.
> This is a change from the past where we have had release maintainers
> after a .0 release is in place. I think Niels' diligence as a release
> manager will help us in having a more polished .0 release.

Well +1 for sure, but would leave it to ndevos on the ack ;)

If there is an ack, then for sure I would like to assist in any 
governance related enabling for the release.

>
> 5. Move out 3.8 by 2-3 months (end of May or early June 2016) to
> accomplish these changes.

Can we revisit the exact month in 2 weeks? So that we have enough prep 
time to commit what makes it to the release (for example from a DHT2 
perspective). I know we have the MVP proposal out and that should be the 
goal, but a little more thought would help.

Also, the delay by 2-3 months I would state is more due to (2) than 
anything, (1) and (3) are desirable at this point for 3.8 and good to do.

>
> Would like to know your thoughts and opinions about this proposal before
> we reach out to the broader community about the changes.
>
> Thanks,
> Vijay

[1] http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2015-November/047212.html