You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cassandra.apache.org by Sumanth Pasupuleti <su...@gmail.com> on 2019/06/11 13:45:29 UTC
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life cycle document.
I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any additional feedback
folks may have.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
Thanks,
Sumanth
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net> wrote:
> Echoing Jon’s point here –
>
> JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0 as a production
> ready
> database for business critical cases”
>
> I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and achievable,
> and one I’m legitimately excited about.
>
> Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in Confluence, I owe another
> pass through. There has been a lot of progress here, but I’ve let perfect
> be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll complete that pass
> later this week.
>
> Cheers,
>
> — Scott
>
> > On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan. Jira to
> track progress.
> >
> > Dinesh
> >
> >>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is cut.
> >>
> >> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a great look
> for
> >> the project.
> >>
> >> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> >>
> >> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've backchanneled
> >> with) believe this to be true as well, the referenced wiki page[1] and
> >> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date reflection of the testing
> >> efforts going on. Is there another place this information is stored /
> >> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all coordinated?
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> >> [2]
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Jon,
> >>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with 3.0 minor
> >>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is
> cut.
> >>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it will take as
> long
> >>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Sankalp
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case is we can
> >>> announce
> >>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do or die"
> date,
> >>> and
> >>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make promises. Sticking with
> >>> "when
> >>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target, and this is
> imo
> >>> a
> >>>> good one.
> >>>>
> >>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We could cut our first
> >>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August and release in Sept.
> >>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> >>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty good spot. We've
> >>> developed
> >>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to spin up dev clusters
> in
> >>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written about this a few times
> in
> >>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up that will help show
> >>> this
> >>>> in more details.
> >>>>
> >>>> There's some other quality of life things we should try to hammer out
> >>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings would be nice, for
> >>>> example. Improving documentation (the data modeling section in
> >>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1], and some
> improvements
> >>> to
> >>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata [2], and exposing
> table
> >>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch improvement will help
> >>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables will go a long way to
> >>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks virtual tables at
> the
> >>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing table statistics was a
> >>> big
> >>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help to operators.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
> >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
> >>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Sumanth,
> >>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this together.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> -Nate
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting release types and exit
> >>>>> criteria
> >>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate on.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Sumanth
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sankalp,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for testing.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release types and the exit
> >>>>> criteria
> >>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab at this or
> >>>> start
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dinesh
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
> >>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is expected from an
> >>>>> alpha,
> >>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
> >>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is this for
> >>> alpha,
> >>>>>> beta,
> >>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Sankalp
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
> >>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last sept(?) to
> >>> freeze
> >>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe its really time to
> >>> hit
> >>>>> it!
> >>>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> >>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be changed is
> >>>> still
> >>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at all.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the website will
> >>> definitely
> >>>>>> help.
> >>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <
> >>> djoshi@apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler <
> >>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a very long
> >>> time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's 4.0 going to
> >>>>>> release?"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he suggested possibly Q4
> >>>> 2019.
> >>>>>>> This
> >>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being close by
> >>> ApacheCon
> >>>>> Las
> >>>>>>>>> Vegas
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0 alpha/beta/rc ready
> >>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that time, we'll have been
> >>>>> frozen
> >>>>>>>>> for 1
> >>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release when it's ready,
> >>>> but I
> >>>>>>>>> think Q4
> >>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD" on the downloads
> >>> page
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> "Est.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the estimate, but I
> >>> think
> >>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>>> time to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with ApacheCon nicely for a
> >>>>> preview
> >>>>>>>>> release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the download page?
> >>> Have
> >>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >
>
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>.
Had a few more points of feedback for you Sumanth; trying to get some
clarity on how the PMC might function w/relation to the various votes and
definitions.
Thanks for the integration and continued effort on this - it's looking good!
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:45 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life cycle document.
> I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any additional feedback
> folks may have.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
>
> Thanks,
> Sumanth
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Echoing Jon’s point here –
> >
> > JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0 as a
> production
> > ready
> > database for business critical cases”
> >
> > I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and achievable,
> > and one I’m legitimately excited about.
> >
> > Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in Confluence, I owe another
> > pass through. There has been a lot of progress here, but I’ve let perfect
> > be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll complete that pass
> > later this week.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > — Scott
> >
> > > On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan. Jira to
> > track progress.
> > >
> > > Dinesh
> > >
> > >>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is cut.
> > >>
> > >> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a great look
> > for
> > >> the project.
> > >>
> > >> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> > >>
> > >> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've
> backchanneled
> > >> with) believe this to be true as well, the referenced wiki page[1] and
> > >> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date reflection of the testing
> > >> efforts going on. Is there another place this information is stored /
> > >> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all coordinated?
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > >> [2]
> > >>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <
> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Jon,
> > >>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with 3.0 minor
> > >>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is
> > cut.
> > >>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it will take as
> > long
> > >>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Sankalp
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case is we can
> > >>> announce
> > >>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do or die"
> > date,
> > >>> and
> > >>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make promises. Sticking
> with
> > >>> "when
> > >>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target, and this is
> > imo
> > >>> a
> > >>>> good one.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We could cut our
> first
> > >>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August and release in
> Sept.
> > >>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> > >>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty good spot. We've
> > >>> developed
> > >>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to spin up dev
> clusters
> > in
> > >>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written about this a few
> times
> > in
> > >>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up that will help
> show
> > >>> this
> > >>>> in more details.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> There's some other quality of life things we should try to hammer
> out
> > >>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings would be nice, for
> > >>>> example. Improving documentation (the data modeling section in
> > >>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1], and some
> > improvements
> > >>> to
> > >>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata [2], and exposing
> > table
> > >>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch improvement will
> help
> > >>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables will go a long way
> to
> > >>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks virtual tables
> at
> > the
> > >>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing table statistics
> was a
> > >>> big
> > >>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help to operators.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
> > >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
> > >>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Sumanth,
> > >>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this together.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>> -Nate
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting release types and exit
> > >>>>> criteria
> > >>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate on.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>> Sumanth
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Sankalp,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for testing.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release types and the exit
> > >>>>> criteria
> > >>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab at this or
> > >>>> start
> > >>>>> a
> > >>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Dinesh
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
> > >>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is expected from an
> > >>>>> alpha,
> > >>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
> > >>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is this for
> > >>> alpha,
> > >>>>>> beta,
> > >>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
> > >>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last sept(?) to
> > >>> freeze
> > >>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe its really time to
> > >>> hit
> > >>>>> it!
> > >>>>>>> :-)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> > >>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be changed is
> > >>>> still
> > >>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at all.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > >>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the website will
> > >>> definitely
> > >>>>>> help.
> > >>>>>>>>> +1
> > >>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <
> > >>> djoshi@apache.org
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler <
> > >>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a very long
> > >>> time.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's 4.0 going to
> > >>>>>> release?"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he suggested possibly Q4
> > >>>> 2019.
> > >>>>>>> This
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being close by
> > >>> ApacheCon
> > >>>>> Las
> > >>>>>>>>> Vegas
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0 alpha/beta/rc ready
> > >>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that time, we'll have been
> > >>>>> frozen
> > >>>>>>>>> for 1
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release when it's ready,
> > >>>> but I
> > >>>>>>>>> think Q4
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD" on the downloads
> > >>> page
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>> "Est.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the estimate, but I
> > >>> think
> > >>>>> it's
> > >>>>>>>>> time to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with ApacheCon nicely for a
> > >>>>> preview
> > >>>>>>>>> release.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the download page?
> > >>> Have
> > >>>>> some
> > >>>>>>>>> other
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >
> >
>
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com>.
I will still start a vote and not solely rely on lazy consensus.
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:06 AM Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I believe your statement is inaccurate, or perhaps just overly broad: "
> Lazy consensus still requires a formal vote, just one that is declared to
> be governed by lazy consensus"; the article I linked explicitly states:
>
> "You don't have to insist people discuss and/or approve your plan, *and you
> certainly don't need to call a vote to get approval*. You just assume you
> have the communities support unless someone says otherwise."
>
> Seems like the intersection of this is: "Lazy consensus is simply an
> announcement of 'silence gives assent.'" with a caveat of "you have N hours
> to dissent before we take silence as assent" when you're unsure or a topic
> is contentious, which tracks with what I've seen kind of informally happen
> on the project in the past 5.5 years.
>
> And for the record, this is just me attempting to open a conversation on
> this since there's some pre-defined guidelines from the ASF on how to
> handle this and it seems like we're not all aware of them as evidenced by
> this thread. We've had some change recently on both PMC and committer list
> as well. This isn't me advocating for the process fwiw; lazy consensus has
> historically led to last minute interventions by people raising significant
> concerns on design, process, or worse implementation that gum up the works,
> and they even speak to this in the article: "However, it does require
> everyone who cares for the health of the project to watch what is
> happening, as it is happening. Objecting too far down the road will cause
> upset, but objecting (or asking for clarification of intent) early is
> likely to be greeted with relief that someone is watching and cares."
>
> And I think the formal ASF cultural expectations are completely in keeping
> with what you've stated here bes: "participation in decision-making is
> costly, and that proposers should understand that they need to work to
> lower the cost of decision-making on their proposal, and that we as a
> project need to figure out how to help them do this."
>
> Not to hijack the thread
>
> #fail
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:22 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <
> benedict@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Lazy consensus still requires a formal vote, just one that is declared to
> > be governed by lazy consensus.
> >
> > I think we need to spend some time formalising our governance, so that we
> > can employ it confidently. At the very least, we should try to codify
> > where we are comfortable employing lazy consensus, and where we might
> want
> > majority vote, and where a veto is acceptable, since at present it's
> > self-declared which is a bit peculiar IMO. We might also want to codify
> > the process for disputing a lazy consensus vote that didn't receive
> enough
> > participation / attention.
> >
> > I personally felt the Jira changes were (accidentally) quite a successful
> > model for community decision-making, even if they were a bit higher
> traffic
> > than we might ordinarily desire - but there were a lot of technical
> > details, and a lot of opinions, which is probably uncommon. The
> successful
> > feature, I think, having been to solicit regular feedback in the form of
> > non-binding +1/-1s on each part of the proposal, before rolling them up
> > into a formal vote representing the collective decision-making. This
> > lowered the bar to participation, and increased the number of
> opportunities
> > to participate, and didn't require ongoing participation by any
> particular
> > person. I'm unsure if it could effectively be employed in other cases,
> but
> > it might be worth a try.
> >
> > This is also the goal of the CEP/CIP, and some people have also proposed
> > working groups. Wider user of lazy consensus fits into the same
> category,
> > I think. These are all attempts to improve the speed and quality of
> > decision-making on the project. I think codifying the rules of the
> project
> > would help as a starting point, but also simply recognising that
> > participation in decision-making is costly, and that proposers should
> > understand that they need to work to lower the cost of decision-making on
> > their proposal, and that we as a project need to figure out how to help
> > them do this.
> >
> >
> > On 30/09/2019, 14:57, "Joshua McKenzie" <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > For what it's worth, lazy consensus is a very important concept in
> the
> > Apache Way <
> https://community.apache.org/committers/lazyConsensus.html
> > >.
> >
> > Methinks if we got a little more comfortable w/lazy consensus and
> > majority
> > voting on process <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html> we
> > might
> > see some quicker evolution on the project.
> >
> > Not to hijack the thread; just figured I'd point it out since it was
> > on my
> > mind and it may not be common knowledge.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:20 PM Sankalp Kohli <
> kohlisankalp@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Let’s put this to vote next week unless someone thinks it is not
> > required
> > >
> > > > On Sep 25, 2019, at 10:56 AM, sankalp kohli <
> > kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can we put it on vote(if required) if no one has more comments?
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:44 PM Jonathan Koppenhofer <
> > > jon@koppedomain.com> wrote:
> > > >> Nice work... I like this and have no additions/comments at this
> > time
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 4:18 PM sankalp kohli <
> > kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > We added and changed a lot of things to this doc during a
> > discussion
> > > in
> > > >> > NGCC. Can everyone take a look at it and provide feedback.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:51 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> > djoshi@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > I have left some comments on the document. Apart from a few
> > > >> > clarifications
> > > >> > > and some minor changes, I feel its in a good shape. I think
> we
> > > should
> > > >> > move
> > > >> > > forward with it. We can refine the process, definitions &
> > criteria
> > > as we
> > > >> > > learn.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Dinesh
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > On Sep 11, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > >> > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > One more call for any additional comments/ feedback on the
> > release
> > > >> > > > lifecycle document
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > Sumanth
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:01 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > >> > > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> Submitted patch to add release lifecycle information to
> the
> > > website
> > > >> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15249
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:57 AM Oleksandr Petrov <
> > > >> > > >> oleksandr.petrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>> Maybe a bit off-topic:
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take
> care
> > of
> > > beta
> > > >> > > protocol
> > > >> > > >>> [1], include released driver versions [2] and remove
> > compact
> > > storage
> > > >> > > >>> remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd argue we
> > should
> > > do it
> > > >> > > >>> sooner
> > > >> > > >>> rather than later.
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14973
> > > >> > > >>> [2]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951
> > > >> > > >>> [3]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > >> > > >>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>>> Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all
> > the
> > > >> > incremental
> > > >> > > >>>> feedback I have thus far.
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>> Looking for any additional feedback folks may have.
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <
> > > >> > scott@paradoxica.net>
> > > >> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a
> > round of
> > > >> > > >>> comments
> > > >> > > >>>> as
> > > >> > > >>>>> well.
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many
> > of the
> > > items
> > > >> > > >>> under
> > > >> > > >>>>> "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the
> > release of
> > > an
> > > >> > > >>> alpha,
> > > >> > > >>>>> especially those related to correctness/safety, scope
> > lock,
> > > feature
> > > >> > > >>>>> completeness, deprecation, and backwards
> compatibility.
> > > >> > Establishing
> > > >> > > a
> > > >> > > >>>>> higher standard for official project releases (even at
> > the
> > > alpha
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > >>> beta
> > > >> > > >>>>> stage) will help us really polish the final build
> > together.
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> Ideally, I feel that contributors should have
> completed
> > > extensive
> > > >> > > >>>>> testing/validation to ensure that no critical or
> severe
> > bugs
> > > exist
> > > >> > > >>> prior
> > > >> > > >>>> to
> > > >> > > >>>>> the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency
> > > violations,
> > > >> > > >>>> incorrect
> > > >> > > >>>>> responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line
> > to this
> > > >> > effect.
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will
> > help us
> > > focus
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > >>>>> final stages of the release on gathering feedback from
> > users +
> > > >> > > >>> developers
> > > >> > > >>>>> to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with
> > less
> > > >> > > >>> commonly-used
> > > >> > > >>>>> client libraries, testing new features, evaluating
> > > performance and
> > > >> > > >>>>> stability under their workloads, etc.
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> – Scott
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <
> > > >> > > >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/
> > release life
> > > >> > cycle
> > > >> > > >>>>> document.
> > > >> > > >>>>> I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for
> > any
> > > >> > additional
> > > >> > > >>>>> feedback
> > > >> > > >>>>> folks may have.
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > >> > > >>>>> Sumanth
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <
> > > >> > > >>> scott@paradoxica.net
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>> Echoing Jon’s point here –
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>> JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend
> > 4.0.0
> > > as a
> > > >> > > >>>>> production
> > > >> > > >>>>>> ready
> > > >> > > >>>>>> database for business critical cases”
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>> I feel that this is a standard that is both
> > appropriate and
> > > >> > > >>>>> achievable,
> > > >> > > >>>>>> and one I’m legitimately excited about.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>> Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in
> > Confluence, I
> > > owe
> > > >> > > >>>>> another
> > > >> > > >>>>>> pass through. There has been a lot of progress here,
> > but I’ve
> > > >> > > >>> let
> > > >> > > >>>>> perfect
> > > >> > > >>>>>> be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll
> > > complete
> > > >> > > >>> that
> > > >> > > >>>>> pass
> > > >> > > >>>>>> later this week.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>> — Scott
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <
> > > djoshi@apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>> +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the
> overall
> > plan.
> > > >> > > >>> Jira
> > > >> > > >>>> to
> > > >> > > >>>>>> track progress.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>> Dinesh
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
> > > >> > > >>>>> jmckenzie@apache.org>
> > > >> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till
> > .10 is
> > > >> > > >>> cut.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is
> still
> > not a
> > > >> > > >>> great
> > > >> > > >>>>> look
> > > >> > > >>>>>> for
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> the project.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0
> already.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the
> people
> > I've
> > > >> > > >>>>> backchanneled
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> with) believe this to be true as well, the
> > referenced wiki
> > > >> > > >>>>> page[1] and
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date
> > reflection of
> > > the
> > > >> > > >>>>> testing
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> efforts going on. Is there another place this
> > information
> > > is
> > > >> > > >>>>> stored /
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all
> > > >> > > >>> coordinated?
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> [1]
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> [2]
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <
> > > >> > > >>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jon,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match
> it
> > with
> > > >> > > >>> 3.0
> > > >> > > >>>>> minor
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to
> > prod
> > > till
> > > >> > > >>>> .10
> > > >> > > >>>>> is
> > > >> > > >>>>>> cut.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont
> > think it
> > > >> > > >>> will
> > > >> > > >>>>> take as
> > > >> > > >>>>>> long
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with
> > this.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <
> > > >> > > >>> jon@jonhaddad.com
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the
> ideal
> > case
> > > is
> > > >> > > >>> we
> > > >> > > >>>>> can
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> announce
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this
> > as a "do
> > > >> > > >>> or
> > > >> > > >>>>> die"
> > > >> > > >>>>>> date,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make
> > promises.
> > > >> > > >>>>> Sticking with
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> "when
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a
> > target,
> > > >> > > >>> and
> > > >> > > >>>>> this is
> > > >> > > >>>>>> imo
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> good one.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We
> > could
> > > cut
> > > >> > > >>>> our
> > > >> > > >>>>> first
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August
> > and
> > > >> > > >>> release
> > > >> > > >>>> in
> > > >> > > >>>>> Sept.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0
> > already.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty
> > good
> > > spot.
> > > >> > > >>>>> We've
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> developed
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to
> > spin up
> > > >> > > >>> dev
> > > >> > > >>>>> clusters
> > > >> > > >>>>>> in
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written
> > about
> > > this a
> > > >> > > >>>> few
> > > >> > > >>>>> times
> > > >> > > >>>>>> in
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming
> up
> > that
> > > >> > > >>> will
> > > >> > > >>>>> help show
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> in more details.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> There's some other quality of life things we
> > should try
> > > to
> > > >> > > >>>>> hammer out
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings
> > would be
> > > >> > > >>> nice,
> > > >> > > >>>>> for
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> example. Improving documentation (the data
> > modeling
> > > >> > > >>> section
> > > >> > > >>>> in
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues
> [1],
> > and
> > > some
> > > >> > > >>>>>> improvements
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata
> > [2],
> > > and
> > > >> > > >>>>> exposing
> > > >> > > >>>>>> table
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch
> > > >> > > >>> improvement
> > > >> > > >>>>> will help
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables
> > will go
> > > a
> > > >> > > >>>> long
> > > >> > > >>>>> way to
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few
> folks
> > > virtual
> > > >> > > >>>>> tables at
> > > >> > > >>>>>> the
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing
> > table
> > > >> > > >>>>> statistics was a
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> big
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big
> help
> > to
> > > >> > > >>>> operators.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [3]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <
> > > >> > > >>>>> zznate.m@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sumanth,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put
> this
> > > >> > > >>> together.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Nate
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth
> > Pasupuleti <
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting
> > release
> > > types
> > > >> > > >>>> and
> > > >> > > >>>>> exit
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to
> > collaborate
> > > >> > > >>> on.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sumanth
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> > > >> > > >>>>> djoshi@apache.org>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for
> > testing.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release
> > types
> > > and
> > > >> > > >>> the
> > > >> > > >>>>> exit
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take
> > a stab
> > > at
> > > >> > > >>>>> this or
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> start
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is
> > expected
> > > >> > > >>> from
> > > >> > > >>>>> an
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> alpha,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019
> > timeline. Is
> > > >> > > >>> this
> > > >> > > >>>> for
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> alpha,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> beta,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about
> > last
> > > >> > > >>> sept(?)
> > > >> > > >>>> to
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> freeze
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe
> > its
> > > really
> > > >> > > >>>>> time to
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> hit
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it!
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs
> > to be
> > > >> > > >>>> changed
> > > >> > > >>>>> is
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> still
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at
> > all.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth
> > Pasupuleti <
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the
> > website
> > > >> > > >>> will
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> help.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh
> > Joshi <
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> djoshi@apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael
> > Shuler <
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date
> > for a
> > > >> > > >>> very
> > > >> > > >>>>> long
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> time.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a
> > "when's
> > > 4.0
> > > >> > > >>>>> going to
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> release?"
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he
> > suggested
> > > >> > > >>>>> possibly Q4
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> 2019.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly
> > being
> > > close
> > > >> > > >>> by
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> ApacheCon
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Las
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegas
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0
> > > >> > > >>> alpha/beta/rc
> > > >> > > >>>>> ready
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that
> > time,
> > > we'll
> > > >> > > >>>> have
> > > >> > > >>>>> been
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> frozen
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 1
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA
> release
> > when
> > > >> > > >>> it's
> > > >> > > >>>>> ready,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> but I
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Q4
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD"
> > on the
> > > >> > > >>>>> downloads
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> page
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Est.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the
> > > estimate,
> > > >> > > >>>> but I
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with
> > ApacheCon
> > > >> > > >>> nicely
> > > >> > > >>>>> for a
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> preview
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing
> the
> > > download
> > > >> > > >>>>> page?
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Have
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> --
> > > >> > > >>> alex p
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>.
>
> These are all further reasons to codify our project governance, as we keep
> referring to things that don't map to project norms.
Strong +1 here. To reiterate: I don't necessarily agree w/all the stated
defaults for project management and behavior, we just haven't really
articulated our own culture for people to align to it either so seems a
reasonable starting point.
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 12:20 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hmm, you're right, I'm not sure what I was remembering. Fortunately you
> can just ignore the first sentence of my email; mea culpa.
>
> However, I'm not sure how useful it is as a mechanism for achieving
> consensus if there's no way for voting members to know a decision is being
> made. The value of a formal vote email is that participants know a
> decision is being made, and should participate if they care.
>
> Unfortunately, it seems like current project norms also don't map well to
> the concepts provided in the ASF wikis. For instance, we do not follow the
> review-then-commit policy, as this requires 3 +1 votes from a PMC to
> authorise a commit. However we also do not follow the commit-then-review
> policy, as we require reviews from committers, and do not generally require
> any cooling-off period before commit, so long as at least one review vote
> has been cast - and not even necessarily by a PMC member (or even always by
> a committer). Lazy consensus appears to have been intended to operate
> primarily for code modifications (given the examples and caveats), and
> seems problematic for larger decisions, particularly procedural ones.
>
> These are all further reasons to codify our project governance, as we keep
> referring to things that don't map to project norms.
>
>
> On 30/09/2019, 19:06, "Joshua McKenzie" <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I believe your statement is inaccurate, or perhaps just overly broad: "
> Lazy consensus still requires a formal vote, just one that is declared
> to
> be governed by lazy consensus"; the article I linked explicitly states:
>
> "You don't have to insist people discuss and/or approve your plan,
> *and you
> certainly don't need to call a vote to get approval*. You just assume
> you
> have the communities support unless someone says otherwise."
>
> Seems like the intersection of this is: "Lazy consensus is simply an
> announcement of 'silence gives assent.'" with a caveat of "you have N
> hours
> to dissent before we take silence as assent" when you're unsure or a
> topic
> is contentious, which tracks with what I've seen kind of informally
> happen
> on the project in the past 5.5 years.
>
> And for the record, this is just me attempting to open a conversation
> on
> this since there's some pre-defined guidelines from the ASF on how to
> handle this and it seems like we're not all aware of them as evidenced
> by
> this thread. We've had some change recently on both PMC and committer
> list
> as well. This isn't me advocating for the process fwiw; lazy consensus
> has
> historically led to last minute interventions by people raising
> significant
> concerns on design, process, or worse implementation that gum up the
> works,
> and they even speak to this in the article: "However, it does require
> everyone who cares for the health of the project to watch what is
> happening, as it is happening. Objecting too far down the road will
> cause
> upset, but objecting (or asking for clarification of intent) early is
> likely to be greeted with relief that someone is watching and cares."
>
> And I think the formal ASF cultural expectations are completely in
> keeping
> with what you've stated here bes: "participation in decision-making is
> costly, and that proposers should understand that they need to work to
> lower the cost of decision-making on their proposal, and that we as a
> project need to figure out how to help them do this."
>
> Not to hijack the thread
>
> #fail
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:22 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <
> benedict@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Lazy consensus still requires a formal vote, just one that is
> declared to
> > be governed by lazy consensus.
> >
> > I think we need to spend some time formalising our governance, so
> that we
> > can employ it confidently. At the very least, we should try to
> codify
> > where we are comfortable employing lazy consensus, and where we
> might want
> > majority vote, and where a veto is acceptable, since at present it's
> > self-declared which is a bit peculiar IMO. We might also want to
> codify
> > the process for disputing a lazy consensus vote that didn't receive
> enough
> > participation / attention.
> >
> > I personally felt the Jira changes were (accidentally) quite a
> successful
> > model for community decision-making, even if they were a bit higher
> traffic
> > than we might ordinarily desire - but there were a lot of technical
> > details, and a lot of opinions, which is probably uncommon. The
> successful
> > feature, I think, having been to solicit regular feedback in the
> form of
> > non-binding +1/-1s on each part of the proposal, before rolling them
> up
> > into a formal vote representing the collective decision-making. This
> > lowered the bar to participation, and increased the number of
> opportunities
> > to participate, and didn't require ongoing participation by any
> particular
> > person. I'm unsure if it could effectively be employed in other
> cases, but
> > it might be worth a try.
> >
> > This is also the goal of the CEP/CIP, and some people have also
> proposed
> > working groups. Wider user of lazy consensus fits into the same
> category,
> > I think. These are all attempts to improve the speed and quality of
> > decision-making on the project. I think codifying the rules of the
> project
> > would help as a starting point, but also simply recognising that
> > participation in decision-making is costly, and that proposers should
> > understand that they need to work to lower the cost of
> decision-making on
> > their proposal, and that we as a project need to figure out how to
> help
> > them do this.
> >
> >
> > On 30/09/2019, 14:57, "Joshua McKenzie" <jm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > For what it's worth, lazy consensus is a very important concept
> in the
> > Apache Way <
> https://community.apache.org/committers/lazyConsensus.html
> > >.
> >
> > Methinks if we got a little more comfortable w/lazy consensus and
> > majority
> > voting on process <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>
> we
> > might
> > see some quicker evolution on the project.
> >
> > Not to hijack the thread; just figured I'd point it out since it
> was
> > on my
> > mind and it may not be common knowledge.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:20 PM Sankalp Kohli <
> kohlisankalp@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Let’s put this to vote next week unless someone thinks it is
> not
> > required
> > >
> > > > On Sep 25, 2019, at 10:56 AM, sankalp kohli <
> > kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can we put it on vote(if required) if no one has more
> comments?
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:44 PM Jonathan Koppenhofer <
> > > jon@koppedomain.com> wrote:
> > > >> Nice work... I like this and have no additions/comments at
> this
> > time
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 4:18 PM sankalp kohli <
> > kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > We added and changed a lot of things to this doc during a
> > discussion
> > > in
> > > >> > NGCC. Can everyone take a look at it and provide feedback.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:51 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> > djoshi@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > I have left some comments on the document. Apart from a
> few
> > > >> > clarifications
> > > >> > > and some minor changes, I feel its in a good shape. I
> think we
> > > should
> > > >> > move
> > > >> > > forward with it. We can refine the process, definitions
> &
> > criteria
> > > as we
> > > >> > > learn.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Dinesh
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > On Sep 11, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > >> > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > One more call for any additional comments/ feedback
> on the
> > release
> > > >> > > > lifecycle document
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > Sumanth
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:01 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > >> > > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> Submitted patch to add release lifecycle information
> to the
> > > website
> > > >> > > >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15249
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:57 AM Oleksandr Petrov <
> > > >> > > >> oleksandr.petrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>> Maybe a bit off-topic:
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> Before we cut a release, we should make sure we
> take care
> > of
> > > beta
> > > >> > > protocol
> > > >> > > >>> [1], include released driver versions [2] and remove
> > compact
> > > storage
> > > >> > > >>> remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd
> argue we
> > should
> > > do it
> > > >> > > >>> sooner
> > > >> > > >>> rather than later.
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14973
> > > >> > > >>> [2]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951
> > > >> > > >>> [3]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > >> > > >>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>>> Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated
> all
> > the
> > > >> > incremental
> > > >> > > >>>> feedback I have thus far.
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>> Looking for any additional feedback folks may have.
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <
> > > >> > scott@paradoxica.net>
> > > >> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth!
> Added a
> > round of
> > > >> > > >>> comments
> > > >> > > >>>> as
> > > >> > > >>>>> well.
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that
> many
> > of the
> > > items
> > > >> > > >>> under
> > > >> > > >>>>> "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the
> > release of
> > > an
> > > >> > > >>> alpha,
> > > >> > > >>>>> especially those related to correctness/safety,
> scope
> > lock,
> > > feature
> > > >> > > >>>>> completeness, deprecation, and backwards
> compatibility.
> > > >> > Establishing
> > > >> > > a
> > > >> > > >>>>> higher standard for official project releases
> (even at
> > the
> > > alpha
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > >>> beta
> > > >> > > >>>>> stage) will help us really polish the final build
> > together.
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> Ideally, I feel that contributors should have
> completed
> > > extensive
> > > >> > > >>>>> testing/validation to ensure that no critical or
> severe
> > bugs
> > > exist
> > > >> > > >>> prior
> > > >> > > >>>> to
> > > >> > > >>>>> the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss,
> consistency
> > > violations,
> > > >> > > >>>> incorrect
> > > >> > > >>>>> responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a
> line
> > to this
> > > >> > effect.
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha
> will
> > help us
> > > focus
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > >>>>> final stages of the release on gathering feedback
> from
> > users +
> > > >> > > >>> developers
> > > >> > > >>>>> to validate tooling and automation; compatibility
> with
> > less
> > > >> > > >>> commonly-used
> > > >> > > >>>>> client libraries, testing new features, evaluating
> > > performance and
> > > >> > > >>>>> stability under their workloads, etc.
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> – Scott
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <
> > > >> > > >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/
> > release life
> > > >> > cycle
> > > >> > > >>>>> document.
> > > >> > > >>>>> I have incorporated the suggestions and
> looking for
> > any
> > > >> > additional
> > > >> > > >>>>> feedback
> > > >> > > >>>>> folks may have.
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > >> > > >>>>> Sumanth
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas
> <
> > > >> > > >>> scott@paradoxica.net
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>> Echoing Jon’s point here –
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>> JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to
> recommend
> > 4.0.0
> > > as a
> > > >> > > >>>>> production
> > > >> > > >>>>>> ready
> > > >> > > >>>>>> database for business critical cases”
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>> I feel that this is a standard that is both
> > appropriate and
> > > >> > > >>>>> achievable,
> > > >> > > >>>>>> and one I’m legitimately excited about.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>> Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in
> > Confluence, I
> > > owe
> > > >> > > >>>>> another
> > > >> > > >>>>>> pass through. There has been a lot of progress
> here,
> > but I’ve
> > > >> > > >>> let
> > > >> > > >>>>> perfect
> > > >> > > >>>>>> be the enemy of the good in getting updates out.
> I’ll
> > > complete
> > > >> > > >>> that
> > > >> > > >>>>> pass
> > > >> > > >>>>>> later this week.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>> — Scott
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <
> > > djoshi@apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>> +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the
> overall
> > plan.
> > > >> > > >>> Jira
> > > >> > > >>>> to
> > > >> > > >>>>>> track progress.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>> Dinesh
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie
> <
> > > >> > > >>>>> jmckenzie@apache.org>
> > > >> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod
> till
> > .10 is
> > > >> > > >>> cut.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is
> still
> > not a
> > > >> > > >>> great
> > > >> > > >>>>> look
> > > >> > > >>>>>> for
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> the project.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0
> already.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the
> people
> > I've
> > > >> > > >>>>> backchanneled
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> with) believe this to be true as well, the
> > referenced wiki
> > > >> > > >>>>> page[1] and
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date
> > reflection of
> > > the
> > > >> > > >>>>> testing
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> efforts going on. Is there another place this
> > information
> > > is
> > > >> > > >>>>> stored /
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> queryable we can surface to people to keep us
> all
> > > >> > > >>> coordinated?
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> [1]
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> [2]
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli
> <
> > > >> > > >>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jon,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u
> match it
> > with
> > > >> > > >>> 3.0
> > > >> > > >>>>> minor
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not
> upgrade to
> > prod
> > > till
> > > >> > > >>>> .10
> > > >> > > >>>>> is
> > > >> > > >>>>>> cut.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I
> dont
> > think it
> > > >> > > >>> will
> > > >> > > >>>>> take as
> > > >> > > >>>>>> long
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking
> with
> > this.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <
> > > >> > > >>> jon@jonhaddad.com
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the
> ideal
> > case
> > > is
> > > >> > > >>> we
> > > >> > > >>>>> can
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> announce
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting
> this
> > as a "do
> > > >> > > >>> or
> > > >> > > >>>>> die"
> > > >> > > >>>>>> date,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make
> > promises.
> > > >> > > >>>>> Sticking with
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> "when
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we
> need a
> > target,
> > > >> > > >>> and
> > > >> > > >>>>> this is
> > > >> > > >>>>>> imo
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> good one.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> This date also gives us a pretty good
> runway. We
> > could
> > > cut
> > > >> > > >>>> our
> > > >> > > >>>>> first
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in
> August
> > and
> > > >> > > >>> release
> > > >> > > >>>> in
> > > >> > > >>>>> Sept.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0
> > already.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a
> pretty
> > good
> > > spot.
> > > >> > > >>>>> We've
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> developed
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot
> easier to
> > spin up
> > > >> > > >>> dev
> > > >> > > >>>>> clusters
> > > >> > > >>>>>> in
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've
> written
> > about
> > > this a
> > > >> > > >>>> few
> > > >> > > >>>>> times
> > > >> > > >>>>>> in
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts
> coming up
> > that
> > > >> > > >>> will
> > > >> > > >>>>> help show
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> in more details.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> There's some other quality of life things we
> > should try
> > > to
> > > >> > > >>>>> hammer out
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> before then. Updating our default JVM
> settings
> > would be
> > > >> > > >>> nice,
> > > >> > > >>>>> for
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> example. Improving documentation (the data
> > modeling
> > > >> > > >>> section
> > > >> > > >>>> in
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch
> issues [1],
> > and
> > > some
> > > >> > > >>>>>> improvements
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable
> metadata
> > [2],
> > > and
> > > >> > > >>>>> exposing
> > > >> > > >>>>>> table
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic
> snitch
> > > >> > > >>> improvement
> > > >> > > >>>>> will help
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual
> tables
> > will go
> > > a
> > > >> > > >>>> long
> > > >> > > >>>>> way to
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a
> few folks
> > > virtual
> > > >> > > >>>>> tables at
> > > >> > > >>>>>> the
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Accelerate conference last week and the
> missing
> > table
> > > >> > > >>>>> statistics was a
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> big
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a
> big help
> > to
> > > >> > > >>>> operators.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [3]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall
> <
> > > >> > > >>>>> zznate.m@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sumanth,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to
> put this
> > > >> > > >>> together.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Nate
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth
> > Pasupuleti <
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting
> > release
> > > types
> > > >> > > >>>> and
> > > >> > > >>>>> exit
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to
> > collaborate
> > > >> > > >>> on.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sumanth
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh
> Joshi <
> > > >> > > >>>>> djoshi@apache.org>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for
> > testing.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to define the various
> release
> > types
> > > and
> > > >> > > >>> the
> > > >> > > >>>>> exit
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to
> take
> > a stab
> > > at
> > > >> > > >>>>> this or
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> start
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp
> kohli <
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what
> is
> > expected
> > > >> > > >>> from
> > > >> > > >>>>> an
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> alpha,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019
> > timeline. Is
> > > >> > > >>> this
> > > >> > > >>>> for
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> alpha,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> beta,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila
> Wind
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking
> about
> > last
> > > >> > > >>> sept(?)
> > > >> > > >>>> to
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> freeze
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing.
> Maybe
> > its
> > > really
> > > >> > > >>>>> time to
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> hit
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it!
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that
> needs
> > to be
> > > >> > > >>>> changed
> > > >> > > >>>>> is
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> still
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date
> at
> > all.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth
> > Pasupuleti <
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on
> the
> > website
> > > >> > > >>> will
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> help.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh
> > Joshi <
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> djoshi@apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM,
> Michael
> > Shuler <
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release
> date
> > for a
> > > >> > > >>> very
> > > >> > > >>>>> long
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> time.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got
> a
> > "when's
> > > 4.0
> > > >> > > >>>>> going to
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> release?"
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he
> > suggested
> > > >> > > >>>>> possibly Q4
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> 2019.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at
> possibly
> > being
> > > close
> > > >> > > >>> by
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> ApacheCon
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Las
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegas
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a
> 4.0
> > > >> > > >>> alpha/beta/rc
> > > >> > > >>>>> ready
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At
> that
> > time,
> > > we'll
> > > >> > > >>>> have
> > > >> > > >>>>> been
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> frozen
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 1
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA
> release
> > when
> > > >> > > >>> it's
> > > >> > > >>>>> ready,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> but I
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Q4
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change
> "TBD"
> > on the
> > > >> > > >>>>> downloads
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> page
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Est.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull
> the
> > > estimate,
> > > >> > > >>>> but I
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with
> > ApacheCon
> > > >> > > >>> nicely
> > > >> > > >>>>> for a
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> preview
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to
> editing the
> > > download
> > > >> > > >>>>> page?
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Have
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >> > > >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>>
> > > >> > > >>>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>> --
> > > >> > > >>> alex p
> > > >> > > >>>
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
Hmm, you're right, I'm not sure what I was remembering. Fortunately you can just ignore the first sentence of my email; mea culpa.
However, I'm not sure how useful it is as a mechanism for achieving consensus if there's no way for voting members to know a decision is being made. The value of a formal vote email is that participants know a decision is being made, and should participate if they care.
Unfortunately, it seems like current project norms also don't map well to the concepts provided in the ASF wikis. For instance, we do not follow the review-then-commit policy, as this requires 3 +1 votes from a PMC to authorise a commit. However we also do not follow the commit-then-review policy, as we require reviews from committers, and do not generally require any cooling-off period before commit, so long as at least one review vote has been cast - and not even necessarily by a PMC member (or even always by a committer). Lazy consensus appears to have been intended to operate primarily for code modifications (given the examples and caveats), and seems problematic for larger decisions, particularly procedural ones.
These are all further reasons to codify our project governance, as we keep referring to things that don't map to project norms.
On 30/09/2019, 19:06, "Joshua McKenzie" <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
I believe your statement is inaccurate, or perhaps just overly broad: "
Lazy consensus still requires a formal vote, just one that is declared to
be governed by lazy consensus"; the article I linked explicitly states:
"You don't have to insist people discuss and/or approve your plan, *and you
certainly don't need to call a vote to get approval*. You just assume you
have the communities support unless someone says otherwise."
Seems like the intersection of this is: "Lazy consensus is simply an
announcement of 'silence gives assent.'" with a caveat of "you have N hours
to dissent before we take silence as assent" when you're unsure or a topic
is contentious, which tracks with what I've seen kind of informally happen
on the project in the past 5.5 years.
And for the record, this is just me attempting to open a conversation on
this since there's some pre-defined guidelines from the ASF on how to
handle this and it seems like we're not all aware of them as evidenced by
this thread. We've had some change recently on both PMC and committer list
as well. This isn't me advocating for the process fwiw; lazy consensus has
historically led to last minute interventions by people raising significant
concerns on design, process, or worse implementation that gum up the works,
and they even speak to this in the article: "However, it does require
everyone who cares for the health of the project to watch what is
happening, as it is happening. Objecting too far down the road will cause
upset, but objecting (or asking for clarification of intent) early is
likely to be greeted with relief that someone is watching and cares."
And I think the formal ASF cultural expectations are completely in keeping
with what you've stated here bes: "participation in decision-making is
costly, and that proposers should understand that they need to work to
lower the cost of decision-making on their proposal, and that we as a
project need to figure out how to help them do this."
Not to hijack the thread
#fail
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:22 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Lazy consensus still requires a formal vote, just one that is declared to
> be governed by lazy consensus.
>
> I think we need to spend some time formalising our governance, so that we
> can employ it confidently. At the very least, we should try to codify
> where we are comfortable employing lazy consensus, and where we might want
> majority vote, and where a veto is acceptable, since at present it's
> self-declared which is a bit peculiar IMO. We might also want to codify
> the process for disputing a lazy consensus vote that didn't receive enough
> participation / attention.
>
> I personally felt the Jira changes were (accidentally) quite a successful
> model for community decision-making, even if they were a bit higher traffic
> than we might ordinarily desire - but there were a lot of technical
> details, and a lot of opinions, which is probably uncommon. The successful
> feature, I think, having been to solicit regular feedback in the form of
> non-binding +1/-1s on each part of the proposal, before rolling them up
> into a formal vote representing the collective decision-making. This
> lowered the bar to participation, and increased the number of opportunities
> to participate, and didn't require ongoing participation by any particular
> person. I'm unsure if it could effectively be employed in other cases, but
> it might be worth a try.
>
> This is also the goal of the CEP/CIP, and some people have also proposed
> working groups. Wider user of lazy consensus fits into the same category,
> I think. These are all attempts to improve the speed and quality of
> decision-making on the project. I think codifying the rules of the project
> would help as a starting point, but also simply recognising that
> participation in decision-making is costly, and that proposers should
> understand that they need to work to lower the cost of decision-making on
> their proposal, and that we as a project need to figure out how to help
> them do this.
>
>
> On 30/09/2019, 14:57, "Joshua McKenzie" <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, lazy consensus is a very important concept in the
> Apache Way <https://community.apache.org/committers/lazyConsensus.html
> >.
>
> Methinks if we got a little more comfortable w/lazy consensus and
> majority
> voting on process <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html> we
> might
> see some quicker evolution on the project.
>
> Not to hijack the thread; just figured I'd point it out since it was
> on my
> mind and it may not be common knowledge.
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:20 PM Sankalp Kohli <kohlisankalp@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Let’s put this to vote next week unless someone thinks it is not
> required
> >
> > > On Sep 25, 2019, at 10:56 AM, sankalp kohli <
> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Can we put it on vote(if required) if no one has more comments?
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:44 PM Jonathan Koppenhofer <
> > jon@koppedomain.com> wrote:
> > >> Nice work... I like this and have no additions/comments at this
> time
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 4:18 PM sankalp kohli <
> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > We added and changed a lot of things to this doc during a
> discussion
> > in
> > >> > NGCC. Can everyone take a look at it and provide feedback.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:51 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> djoshi@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I have left some comments on the document. Apart from a few
> > >> > clarifications
> > >> > > and some minor changes, I feel its in a good shape. I think we
> > should
> > >> > move
> > >> > > forward with it. We can refine the process, definitions &
> criteria
> > as we
> > >> > > learn.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Dinesh
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > On Sep 11, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > >> > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > One more call for any additional comments/ feedback on the
> release
> > >> > > > lifecycle document
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > Sumanth
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:01 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > >> > > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> Submitted patch to add release lifecycle information to the
> > website
> > >> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15249
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:57 AM Oleksandr Petrov <
> > >> > > >> oleksandr.petrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>> Maybe a bit off-topic:
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take care
> of
> > beta
> > >> > > protocol
> > >> > > >>> [1], include released driver versions [2] and remove
> compact
> > storage
> > >> > > >>> remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd argue we
> should
> > do it
> > >> > > >>> sooner
> > >> > > >>> rather than later.
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14973
> > >> > > >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951
> > >> > > >>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > >> > > >>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>> Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all
> the
> > >> > incremental
> > >> > > >>>> feedback I have thus far.
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>> Looking for any additional feedback folks may have.
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <
> > >> > scott@paradoxica.net>
> > >> > > >>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a
> round of
> > >> > > >>> comments
> > >> > > >>>> as
> > >> > > >>>>> well.
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many
> of the
> > items
> > >> > > >>> under
> > >> > > >>>>> "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the
> release of
> > an
> > >> > > >>> alpha,
> > >> > > >>>>> especially those related to correctness/safety, scope
> lock,
> > feature
> > >> > > >>>>> completeness, deprecation, and backwards compatibility.
> > >> > Establishing
> > >> > > a
> > >> > > >>>>> higher standard for official project releases (even at
> the
> > alpha
> > >> > and
> > >> > > >>> beta
> > >> > > >>>>> stage) will help us really polish the final build
> together.
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> Ideally, I feel that contributors should have completed
> > extensive
> > >> > > >>>>> testing/validation to ensure that no critical or severe
> bugs
> > exist
> > >> > > >>> prior
> > >> > > >>>> to
> > >> > > >>>>> the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency
> > violations,
> > >> > > >>>> incorrect
> > >> > > >>>>> responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line
> to this
> > >> > effect.
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will
> help us
> > focus
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > >>>>> final stages of the release on gathering feedback from
> users +
> > >> > > >>> developers
> > >> > > >>>>> to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with
> less
> > >> > > >>> commonly-used
> > >> > > >>>>> client libraries, testing new features, evaluating
> > performance and
> > >> > > >>>>> stability under their workloads, etc.
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> – Scott
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <
> > >> > > >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/
> release life
> > >> > cycle
> > >> > > >>>>> document.
> > >> > > >>>>> I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for
> any
> > >> > additional
> > >> > > >>>>> feedback
> > >> > > >>>>> folks may have.
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > >>>>> Sumanth
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <
> > >> > > >>> scott@paradoxica.net
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>> Echoing Jon’s point here –
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>> JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend
> 4.0.0
> > as a
> > >> > > >>>>> production
> > >> > > >>>>>> ready
> > >> > > >>>>>> database for business critical cases”
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>> I feel that this is a standard that is both
> appropriate and
> > >> > > >>>>> achievable,
> > >> > > >>>>>> and one I’m legitimately excited about.
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>> Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in
> Confluence, I
> > owe
> > >> > > >>>>> another
> > >> > > >>>>>> pass through. There has been a lot of progress here,
> but I’ve
> > >> > > >>> let
> > >> > > >>>>> perfect
> > >> > > >>>>>> be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll
> > complete
> > >> > > >>> that
> > >> > > >>>>> pass
> > >> > > >>>>>> later this week.
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>> — Scott
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <
> > djoshi@apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>> +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall
> plan.
> > >> > > >>> Jira
> > >> > > >>>> to
> > >> > > >>>>>> track progress.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>> Dinesh
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
> > >> > > >>>>> jmckenzie@apache.org>
> > >> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till
> .10 is
> > >> > > >>> cut.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still
> not a
> > >> > > >>> great
> > >> > > >>>>> look
> > >> > > >>>>>> for
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> the project.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people
> I've
> > >> > > >>>>> backchanneled
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> with) believe this to be true as well, the
> referenced wiki
> > >> > > >>>>> page[1] and
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date
> reflection of
> > the
> > >> > > >>>>> testing
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> efforts going on. Is there another place this
> information
> > is
> > >> > > >>>>> stored /
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all
> > >> > > >>> coordinated?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> [1]
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> [2]
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <
> > >> > > >>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jon,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it
> with
> > >> > > >>> 3.0
> > >> > > >>>>> minor
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to
> prod
> > till
> > >> > > >>>> .10
> > >> > > >>>>> is
> > >> > > >>>>>> cut.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont
> think it
> > >> > > >>> will
> > >> > > >>>>> take as
> > >> > > >>>>>> long
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with
> this.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <
> > >> > > >>> jon@jonhaddad.com
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal
> case
> > is
> > >> > > >>> we
> > >> > > >>>>> can
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> announce
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this
> as a "do
> > >> > > >>> or
> > >> > > >>>>> die"
> > >> > > >>>>>> date,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make
> promises.
> > >> > > >>>>> Sticking with
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> "when
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a
> target,
> > >> > > >>> and
> > >> > > >>>>> this is
> > >> > > >>>>>> imo
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> good one.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We
> could
> > cut
> > >> > > >>>> our
> > >> > > >>>>> first
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August
> and
> > >> > > >>> release
> > >> > > >>>> in
> > >> > > >>>>> Sept.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0
> already.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty
> good
> > spot.
> > >> > > >>>>> We've
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> developed
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to
> spin up
> > >> > > >>> dev
> > >> > > >>>>> clusters
> > >> > > >>>>>> in
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written
> about
> > this a
> > >> > > >>>> few
> > >> > > >>>>> times
> > >> > > >>>>>> in
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up
> that
> > >> > > >>> will
> > >> > > >>>>> help show
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> in more details.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> There's some other quality of life things we
> should try
> > to
> > >> > > >>>>> hammer out
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings
> would be
> > >> > > >>> nice,
> > >> > > >>>>> for
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> example. Improving documentation (the data
> modeling
> > >> > > >>> section
> > >> > > >>>> in
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1],
> and
> > some
> > >> > > >>>>>> improvements
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata
> [2],
> > and
> > >> > > >>>>> exposing
> > >> > > >>>>>> table
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch
> > >> > > >>> improvement
> > >> > > >>>>> will help
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables
> will go
> > a
> > >> > > >>>> long
> > >> > > >>>>> way to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks
> > virtual
> > >> > > >>>>> tables at
> > >> > > >>>>>> the
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing
> table
> > >> > > >>>>> statistics was a
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> big
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help
> to
> > >> > > >>>> operators.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [3]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <
> > >> > > >>>>> zznate.m@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sumanth,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this
> > >> > > >>> together.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Nate
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth
> Pasupuleti <
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting
> release
> > types
> > >> > > >>>> and
> > >> > > >>>>> exit
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to
> collaborate
> > >> > > >>> on.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sumanth
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> > >> > > >>>>> djoshi@apache.org>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for
> testing.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release
> types
> > and
> > >> > > >>> the
> > >> > > >>>>> exit
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take
> a stab
> > at
> > >> > > >>>>> this or
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> start
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is
> expected
> > >> > > >>> from
> > >> > > >>>>> an
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> alpha,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019
> timeline. Is
> > >> > > >>> this
> > >> > > >>>> for
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> alpha,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> beta,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about
> last
> > >> > > >>> sept(?)
> > >> > > >>>> to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> freeze
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe
> its
> > really
> > >> > > >>>>> time to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> hit
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it!
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs
> to be
> > >> > > >>>> changed
> > >> > > >>>>> is
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> still
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at
> all.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth
> Pasupuleti <
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the
> website
> > >> > > >>> will
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> definitely
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> help.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh
> Joshi <
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> djoshi@apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael
> Shuler <
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date
> for a
> > >> > > >>> very
> > >> > > >>>>> long
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> time.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a
> "when's
> > 4.0
> > >> > > >>>>> going to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> release?"
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he
> suggested
> > >> > > >>>>> possibly Q4
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> 2019.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly
> being
> > close
> > >> > > >>> by
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> ApacheCon
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Las
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegas
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0
> > >> > > >>> alpha/beta/rc
> > >> > > >>>>> ready
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that
> time,
> > we'll
> > >> > > >>>> have
> > >> > > >>>>> been
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> frozen
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 1
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release
> when
> > >> > > >>> it's
> > >> > > >>>>> ready,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> but I
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Q4
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD"
> on the
> > >> > > >>>>> downloads
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> page
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Est.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the
> > estimate,
> > >> > > >>>> but I
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with
> ApacheCon
> > >> > > >>> nicely
> > >> > > >>>>> for a
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> preview
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the
> > download
> > >> > > >>>>> page?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Have
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> some
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> --
> > >> > > >>> alex p
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by Mick Semb Wever <mc...@apache.org>.
> Seems like the intersection of this is: "Lazy consensus is simply an
> announcement of 'silence gives assent.'" with a caveat of "you have N hours
> to dissent before we take silence as assent" when you're unsure or a topic
> is contentious, which tracks with what I've seen kind of informally happen
> on the project in the past 5.5 years.
Agree Joshua, the project has already 'silence as assent' and lazy consensus as part of its culture. It's useful when reasonably confident of a change but still hesitant and it is safer to at least mention it on the dev ML, eg "i'm going to do this in a few days unless anyone objects…" It is a complex enough project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>.
I believe your statement is inaccurate, or perhaps just overly broad: "
Lazy consensus still requires a formal vote, just one that is declared to
be governed by lazy consensus"; the article I linked explicitly states:
"You don't have to insist people discuss and/or approve your plan, *and you
certainly don't need to call a vote to get approval*. You just assume you
have the communities support unless someone says otherwise."
Seems like the intersection of this is: "Lazy consensus is simply an
announcement of 'silence gives assent.'" with a caveat of "you have N hours
to dissent before we take silence as assent" when you're unsure or a topic
is contentious, which tracks with what I've seen kind of informally happen
on the project in the past 5.5 years.
And for the record, this is just me attempting to open a conversation on
this since there's some pre-defined guidelines from the ASF on how to
handle this and it seems like we're not all aware of them as evidenced by
this thread. We've had some change recently on both PMC and committer list
as well. This isn't me advocating for the process fwiw; lazy consensus has
historically led to last minute interventions by people raising significant
concerns on design, process, or worse implementation that gum up the works,
and they even speak to this in the article: "However, it does require
everyone who cares for the health of the project to watch what is
happening, as it is happening. Objecting too far down the road will cause
upset, but objecting (or asking for clarification of intent) early is
likely to be greeted with relief that someone is watching and cares."
And I think the formal ASF cultural expectations are completely in keeping
with what you've stated here bes: "participation in decision-making is
costly, and that proposers should understand that they need to work to
lower the cost of decision-making on their proposal, and that we as a
project need to figure out how to help them do this."
Not to hijack the thread
#fail
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 10:22 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Lazy consensus still requires a formal vote, just one that is declared to
> be governed by lazy consensus.
>
> I think we need to spend some time formalising our governance, so that we
> can employ it confidently. At the very least, we should try to codify
> where we are comfortable employing lazy consensus, and where we might want
> majority vote, and where a veto is acceptable, since at present it's
> self-declared which is a bit peculiar IMO. We might also want to codify
> the process for disputing a lazy consensus vote that didn't receive enough
> participation / attention.
>
> I personally felt the Jira changes were (accidentally) quite a successful
> model for community decision-making, even if they were a bit higher traffic
> than we might ordinarily desire - but there were a lot of technical
> details, and a lot of opinions, which is probably uncommon. The successful
> feature, I think, having been to solicit regular feedback in the form of
> non-binding +1/-1s on each part of the proposal, before rolling them up
> into a formal vote representing the collective decision-making. This
> lowered the bar to participation, and increased the number of opportunities
> to participate, and didn't require ongoing participation by any particular
> person. I'm unsure if it could effectively be employed in other cases, but
> it might be worth a try.
>
> This is also the goal of the CEP/CIP, and some people have also proposed
> working groups. Wider user of lazy consensus fits into the same category,
> I think. These are all attempts to improve the speed and quality of
> decision-making on the project. I think codifying the rules of the project
> would help as a starting point, but also simply recognising that
> participation in decision-making is costly, and that proposers should
> understand that they need to work to lower the cost of decision-making on
> their proposal, and that we as a project need to figure out how to help
> them do this.
>
>
> On 30/09/2019, 14:57, "Joshua McKenzie" <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, lazy consensus is a very important concept in the
> Apache Way <https://community.apache.org/committers/lazyConsensus.html
> >.
>
> Methinks if we got a little more comfortable w/lazy consensus and
> majority
> voting on process <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html> we
> might
> see some quicker evolution on the project.
>
> Not to hijack the thread; just figured I'd point it out since it was
> on my
> mind and it may not be common knowledge.
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:20 PM Sankalp Kohli <kohlisankalp@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Let’s put this to vote next week unless someone thinks it is not
> required
> >
> > > On Sep 25, 2019, at 10:56 AM, sankalp kohli <
> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Can we put it on vote(if required) if no one has more comments?
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:44 PM Jonathan Koppenhofer <
> > jon@koppedomain.com> wrote:
> > >> Nice work... I like this and have no additions/comments at this
> time
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 4:18 PM sankalp kohli <
> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > We added and changed a lot of things to this doc during a
> discussion
> > in
> > >> > NGCC. Can everyone take a look at it and provide feedback.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:51 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> djoshi@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I have left some comments on the document. Apart from a few
> > >> > clarifications
> > >> > > and some minor changes, I feel its in a good shape. I think we
> > should
> > >> > move
> > >> > > forward with it. We can refine the process, definitions &
> criteria
> > as we
> > >> > > learn.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Dinesh
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > On Sep 11, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > >> > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > One more call for any additional comments/ feedback on the
> release
> > >> > > > lifecycle document
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > Sumanth
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:01 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > >> > > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> Submitted patch to add release lifecycle information to the
> > website
> > >> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15249
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:57 AM Oleksandr Petrov <
> > >> > > >> oleksandr.petrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>> Maybe a bit off-topic:
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take care
> of
> > beta
> > >> > > protocol
> > >> > > >>> [1], include released driver versions [2] and remove
> compact
> > storage
> > >> > > >>> remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd argue we
> should
> > do it
> > >> > > >>> sooner
> > >> > > >>> rather than later.
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14973
> > >> > > >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951
> > >> > > >>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > >> > > >>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>> Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all
> the
> > >> > incremental
> > >> > > >>>> feedback I have thus far.
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>> Looking for any additional feedback folks may have.
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <
> > >> > scott@paradoxica.net>
> > >> > > >>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a
> round of
> > >> > > >>> comments
> > >> > > >>>> as
> > >> > > >>>>> well.
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many
> of the
> > items
> > >> > > >>> under
> > >> > > >>>>> "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the
> release of
> > an
> > >> > > >>> alpha,
> > >> > > >>>>> especially those related to correctness/safety, scope
> lock,
> > feature
> > >> > > >>>>> completeness, deprecation, and backwards compatibility.
> > >> > Establishing
> > >> > > a
> > >> > > >>>>> higher standard for official project releases (even at
> the
> > alpha
> > >> > and
> > >> > > >>> beta
> > >> > > >>>>> stage) will help us really polish the final build
> together.
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> Ideally, I feel that contributors should have completed
> > extensive
> > >> > > >>>>> testing/validation to ensure that no critical or severe
> bugs
> > exist
> > >> > > >>> prior
> > >> > > >>>> to
> > >> > > >>>>> the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency
> > violations,
> > >> > > >>>> incorrect
> > >> > > >>>>> responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line
> to this
> > >> > effect.
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will
> help us
> > focus
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > >>>>> final stages of the release on gathering feedback from
> users +
> > >> > > >>> developers
> > >> > > >>>>> to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with
> less
> > >> > > >>> commonly-used
> > >> > > >>>>> client libraries, testing new features, evaluating
> > performance and
> > >> > > >>>>> stability under their workloads, etc.
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> – Scott
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <
> > >> > > >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/
> release life
> > >> > cycle
> > >> > > >>>>> document.
> > >> > > >>>>> I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for
> any
> > >> > additional
> > >> > > >>>>> feedback
> > >> > > >>>>> folks may have.
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > >>>>> Sumanth
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <
> > >> > > >>> scott@paradoxica.net
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>> Echoing Jon’s point here –
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>> JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend
> 4.0.0
> > as a
> > >> > > >>>>> production
> > >> > > >>>>>> ready
> > >> > > >>>>>> database for business critical cases”
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>> I feel that this is a standard that is both
> appropriate and
> > >> > > >>>>> achievable,
> > >> > > >>>>>> and one I’m legitimately excited about.
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>> Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in
> Confluence, I
> > owe
> > >> > > >>>>> another
> > >> > > >>>>>> pass through. There has been a lot of progress here,
> but I’ve
> > >> > > >>> let
> > >> > > >>>>> perfect
> > >> > > >>>>>> be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll
> > complete
> > >> > > >>> that
> > >> > > >>>>> pass
> > >> > > >>>>>> later this week.
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>> — Scott
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <
> > djoshi@apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>> +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall
> plan.
> > >> > > >>> Jira
> > >> > > >>>> to
> > >> > > >>>>>> track progress.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>> Dinesh
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
> > >> > > >>>>> jmckenzie@apache.org>
> > >> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till
> .10 is
> > >> > > >>> cut.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still
> not a
> > >> > > >>> great
> > >> > > >>>>> look
> > >> > > >>>>>> for
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> the project.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people
> I've
> > >> > > >>>>> backchanneled
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> with) believe this to be true as well, the
> referenced wiki
> > >> > > >>>>> page[1] and
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date
> reflection of
> > the
> > >> > > >>>>> testing
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> efforts going on. Is there another place this
> information
> > is
> > >> > > >>>>> stored /
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all
> > >> > > >>> coordinated?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> [1]
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> [2]
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <
> > >> > > >>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jon,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it
> with
> > >> > > >>> 3.0
> > >> > > >>>>> minor
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to
> prod
> > till
> > >> > > >>>> .10
> > >> > > >>>>> is
> > >> > > >>>>>> cut.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont
> think it
> > >> > > >>> will
> > >> > > >>>>> take as
> > >> > > >>>>>> long
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with
> this.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <
> > >> > > >>> jon@jonhaddad.com
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal
> case
> > is
> > >> > > >>> we
> > >> > > >>>>> can
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> announce
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this
> as a "do
> > >> > > >>> or
> > >> > > >>>>> die"
> > >> > > >>>>>> date,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make
> promises.
> > >> > > >>>>> Sticking with
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> "when
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a
> target,
> > >> > > >>> and
> > >> > > >>>>> this is
> > >> > > >>>>>> imo
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> good one.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We
> could
> > cut
> > >> > > >>>> our
> > >> > > >>>>> first
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August
> and
> > >> > > >>> release
> > >> > > >>>> in
> > >> > > >>>>> Sept.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0
> already.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty
> good
> > spot.
> > >> > > >>>>> We've
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> developed
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to
> spin up
> > >> > > >>> dev
> > >> > > >>>>> clusters
> > >> > > >>>>>> in
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written
> about
> > this a
> > >> > > >>>> few
> > >> > > >>>>> times
> > >> > > >>>>>> in
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up
> that
> > >> > > >>> will
> > >> > > >>>>> help show
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> in more details.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> There's some other quality of life things we
> should try
> > to
> > >> > > >>>>> hammer out
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings
> would be
> > >> > > >>> nice,
> > >> > > >>>>> for
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> example. Improving documentation (the data
> modeling
> > >> > > >>> section
> > >> > > >>>> in
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1],
> and
> > some
> > >> > > >>>>>> improvements
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata
> [2],
> > and
> > >> > > >>>>> exposing
> > >> > > >>>>>> table
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch
> > >> > > >>> improvement
> > >> > > >>>>> will help
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables
> will go
> > a
> > >> > > >>>> long
> > >> > > >>>>> way to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks
> > virtual
> > >> > > >>>>> tables at
> > >> > > >>>>>> the
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing
> table
> > >> > > >>>>> statistics was a
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> big
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help
> to
> > >> > > >>>> operators.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [2]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [3]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <
> > >> > > >>>>> zznate.m@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sumanth,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this
> > >> > > >>> together.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Nate
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth
> Pasupuleti <
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting
> release
> > types
> > >> > > >>>> and
> > >> > > >>>>> exit
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to
> collaborate
> > >> > > >>> on.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sumanth
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> > >> > > >>>>> djoshi@apache.org>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for
> testing.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release
> types
> > and
> > >> > > >>> the
> > >> > > >>>>> exit
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take
> a stab
> > at
> > >> > > >>>>> this or
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> start
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is
> expected
> > >> > > >>> from
> > >> > > >>>>> an
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> alpha,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019
> timeline. Is
> > >> > > >>> this
> > >> > > >>>> for
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> alpha,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> beta,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about
> last
> > >> > > >>> sept(?)
> > >> > > >>>> to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> freeze
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe
> its
> > really
> > >> > > >>>>> time to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> hit
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it!
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs
> to be
> > >> > > >>>> changed
> > >> > > >>>>> is
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> still
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at
> all.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth
> Pasupuleti <
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the
> website
> > >> > > >>> will
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> definitely
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> help.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh
> Joshi <
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> djoshi@apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael
> Shuler <
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date
> for a
> > >> > > >>> very
> > >> > > >>>>> long
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> time.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a
> "when's
> > 4.0
> > >> > > >>>>> going to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> release?"
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he
> suggested
> > >> > > >>>>> possibly Q4
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> 2019.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly
> being
> > close
> > >> > > >>> by
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> ApacheCon
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Las
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegas
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0
> > >> > > >>> alpha/beta/rc
> > >> > > >>>>> ready
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that
> time,
> > we'll
> > >> > > >>>> have
> > >> > > >>>>> been
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> frozen
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 1
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release
> when
> > >> > > >>> it's
> > >> > > >>>>> ready,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> but I
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Q4
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD"
> on the
> > >> > > >>>>> downloads
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> page
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Est.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the
> > estimate,
> > >> > > >>>> but I
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with
> ApacheCon
> > >> > > >>> nicely
> > >> > > >>>>> for a
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> preview
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the
> > download
> > >> > > >>>>> page?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> Have
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> some
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >> > > >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>>
> > >> > > >>>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>> --
> > >> > > >>> alex p
> > >> > > >>>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by Benedict Elliott Smith <be...@apache.org>.
Lazy consensus still requires a formal vote, just one that is declared to be governed by lazy consensus.
I think we need to spend some time formalising our governance, so that we can employ it confidently. At the very least, we should try to codify where we are comfortable employing lazy consensus, and where we might want majority vote, and where a veto is acceptable, since at present it's self-declared which is a bit peculiar IMO. We might also want to codify the process for disputing a lazy consensus vote that didn't receive enough participation / attention.
I personally felt the Jira changes were (accidentally) quite a successful model for community decision-making, even if they were a bit higher traffic than we might ordinarily desire - but there were a lot of technical details, and a lot of opinions, which is probably uncommon. The successful feature, I think, having been to solicit regular feedback in the form of non-binding +1/-1s on each part of the proposal, before rolling them up into a formal vote representing the collective decision-making. This lowered the bar to participation, and increased the number of opportunities to participate, and didn't require ongoing participation by any particular person. I'm unsure if it could effectively be employed in other cases, but it might be worth a try.
This is also the goal of the CEP/CIP, and some people have also proposed working groups. Wider user of lazy consensus fits into the same category, I think. These are all attempts to improve the speed and quality of decision-making on the project. I think codifying the rules of the project would help as a starting point, but also simply recognising that participation in decision-making is costly, and that proposers should understand that they need to work to lower the cost of decision-making on their proposal, and that we as a project need to figure out how to help them do this.
On 30/09/2019, 14:57, "Joshua McKenzie" <jm...@apache.org> wrote:
For what it's worth, lazy consensus is a very important concept in the
Apache Way <https://community.apache.org/committers/lazyConsensus.html>.
Methinks if we got a little more comfortable w/lazy consensus and majority
voting on process <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html> we might
see some quicker evolution on the project.
Not to hijack the thread; just figured I'd point it out since it was on my
mind and it may not be common knowledge.
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:20 PM Sankalp Kohli <ko...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Let’s put this to vote next week unless someone thinks it is not required
>
> > On Sep 25, 2019, at 10:56 AM, sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Can we put it on vote(if required) if no one has more comments?
> >
> >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:44 PM Jonathan Koppenhofer <
> jon@koppedomain.com> wrote:
> >> Nice work... I like this and have no additions/comments at this time
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 4:18 PM sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > We added and changed a lot of things to this doc during a discussion
> in
> >> > NGCC. Can everyone take a look at it and provide feedback.
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:51 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I have left some comments on the document. Apart from a few
> >> > clarifications
> >> > > and some minor changes, I feel its in a good shape. I think we
> should
> >> > move
> >> > > forward with it. We can refine the process, definitions & criteria
> as we
> >> > > learn.
> >> > >
> >> > > Dinesh
> >> > >
> >> > > > On Sep 11, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >> > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > One more call for any additional comments/ feedback on the release
> >> > > > lifecycle document
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > Sumanth
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:01 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >> > > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Submitted patch to add release lifecycle information to the
> website
> >> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15249
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:57 AM Oleksandr Petrov <
> >> > > >> oleksandr.petrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>> Maybe a bit off-topic:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take care of
> beta
> >> > > protocol
> >> > > >>> [1], include released driver versions [2] and remove compact
> storage
> >> > > >>> remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd argue we should
> do it
> >> > > >>> sooner
> >> > > >>> rather than later.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14973
> >> > > >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951
> >> > > >>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >> > > >>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>> Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all the
> >> > incremental
> >> > > >>>> feedback I have thus far.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> Looking for any additional feedback folks may have.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > >
> >> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <
> >> > scott@paradoxica.net>
> >> > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a round of
> >> > > >>> comments
> >> > > >>>> as
> >> > > >>>>> well.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many of the
> items
> >> > > >>> under
> >> > > >>>>> "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the release of
> an
> >> > > >>> alpha,
> >> > > >>>>> especially those related to correctness/safety, scope lock,
> feature
> >> > > >>>>> completeness, deprecation, and backwards compatibility.
> >> > Establishing
> >> > > a
> >> > > >>>>> higher standard for official project releases (even at the
> alpha
> >> > and
> >> > > >>> beta
> >> > > >>>>> stage) will help us really polish the final build together.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Ideally, I feel that contributors should have completed
> extensive
> >> > > >>>>> testing/validation to ensure that no critical or severe bugs
> exist
> >> > > >>> prior
> >> > > >>>> to
> >> > > >>>>> the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency
> violations,
> >> > > >>>> incorrect
> >> > > >>>>> responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line to this
> >> > effect.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will help us
> focus
> >> > > the
> >> > > >>>>> final stages of the release on gathering feedback from users +
> >> > > >>> developers
> >> > > >>>>> to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with less
> >> > > >>> commonly-used
> >> > > >>>>> client libraries, testing new features, evaluating
> performance and
> >> > > >>>>> stability under their workloads, etc.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> – Scott
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <
> >> > > >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life
> >> > cycle
> >> > > >>>>> document.
> >> > > >>>>> I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any
> >> > additional
> >> > > >>>>> feedback
> >> > > >>>>> folks may have.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > >
> >> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > >>>>> Sumanth
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <
> >> > > >>> scott@paradoxica.net
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> Echoing Jon’s point here –
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0
> as a
> >> > > >>>>> production
> >> > > >>>>>> ready
> >> > > >>>>>> database for business critical cases”
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and
> >> > > >>>>> achievable,
> >> > > >>>>>> and one I’m legitimately excited about.
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in Confluence, I
> owe
> >> > > >>>>> another
> >> > > >>>>>> pass through. There has been a lot of progress here, but I’ve
> >> > > >>> let
> >> > > >>>>> perfect
> >> > > >>>>>> be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll
> complete
> >> > > >>> that
> >> > > >>>>> pass
> >> > > >>>>>> later this week.
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> Cheers,
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> — Scott
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <
> djoshi@apache.org
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>> +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan.
> >> > > >>> Jira
> >> > > >>>> to
> >> > > >>>>>> track progress.
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>> Dinesh
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
> >> > > >>>>> jmckenzie@apache.org>
> >> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is
> >> > > >>> cut.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a
> >> > > >>> great
> >> > > >>>>> look
> >> > > >>>>>> for
> >> > > >>>>>>>> the project.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've
> >> > > >>>>> backchanneled
> >> > > >>>>>>>> with) believe this to be true as well, the referenced wiki
> >> > > >>>>> page[1] and
> >> > > >>>>>>>> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date reflection of
> the
> >> > > >>>>> testing
> >> > > >>>>>>>> efforts going on. Is there another place this information
> is
> >> > > >>>>> stored /
> >> > > >>>>>>>> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all
> >> > > >>> coordinated?
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>> [1]
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > >
> >> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> >> > > >>>>>>>> [2]
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > >
> >> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <
> >> > > >>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> >> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jon,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with
> >> > > >>> 3.0
> >> > > >>>>> minor
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod
> till
> >> > > >>>> .10
> >> > > >>>>> is
> >> > > >>>>>> cut.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it
> >> > > >>> will
> >> > > >>>>> take as
> >> > > >>>>>> long
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <
> >> > > >>> jon@jonhaddad.com
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case
> is
> >> > > >>> we
> >> > > >>>>> can
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> announce
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do
> >> > > >>> or
> >> > > >>>>> die"
> >> > > >>>>>> date,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make promises.
> >> > > >>>>> Sticking with
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> "when
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target,
> >> > > >>> and
> >> > > >>>>> this is
> >> > > >>>>>> imo
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> a
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> good one.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We could
> cut
> >> > > >>>> our
> >> > > >>>>> first
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August and
> >> > > >>> release
> >> > > >>>> in
> >> > > >>>>> Sept.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty good
> spot.
> >> > > >>>>> We've
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> developed
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to spin up
> >> > > >>> dev
> >> > > >>>>> clusters
> >> > > >>>>>> in
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written about
> this a
> >> > > >>>> few
> >> > > >>>>> times
> >> > > >>>>>> in
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up that
> >> > > >>> will
> >> > > >>>>> help show
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> this
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> in more details.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> There's some other quality of life things we should try
> to
> >> > > >>>>> hammer out
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings would be
> >> > > >>> nice,
> >> > > >>>>> for
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> example. Improving documentation (the data modeling
> >> > > >>> section
> >> > > >>>> in
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1], and
> some
> >> > > >>>>>> improvements
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata [2],
> and
> >> > > >>>>> exposing
> >> > > >>>>>> table
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch
> >> > > >>> improvement
> >> > > >>>>> will help
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables will go
> a
> >> > > >>>> long
> >> > > >>>>> way to
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks
> virtual
> >> > > >>>>> tables at
> >> > > >>>>>> the
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing table
> >> > > >>>>> statistics was a
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> big
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help to
> >> > > >>>> operators.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [2]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [3]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <
> >> > > >>>>> zznate.m@gmail.com>
> >> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sumanth,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this
> >> > > >>> together.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Nate
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting release
> types
> >> > > >>>> and
> >> > > >>>>> exit
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate
> >> > > >>> on.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > >
> >> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sumanth
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> >> > > >>>>> djoshi@apache.org>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for testing.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > >
> >> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release types
> and
> >> > > >>> the
> >> > > >>>>> exit
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab
> at
> >> > > >>>>> this or
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> start
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is expected
> >> > > >>> from
> >> > > >>>>> an
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> alpha,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is
> >> > > >>> this
> >> > > >>>> for
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> alpha,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> beta,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last
> >> > > >>> sept(?)
> >> > > >>>> to
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> freeze
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe its
> really
> >> > > >>>>> time to
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> hit
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it!
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be
> >> > > >>>> changed
> >> > > >>>>> is
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> still
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at all.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the website
> >> > > >>> will
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> definitely
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> help.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> djoshi@apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler <
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a
> >> > > >>> very
> >> > > >>>>> long
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> time.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's
> 4.0
> >> > > >>>>> going to
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> release?"
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he suggested
> >> > > >>>>> possibly Q4
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> 2019.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being
> close
> >> > > >>> by
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> ApacheCon
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Las
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegas
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0
> >> > > >>> alpha/beta/rc
> >> > > >>>>> ready
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that time,
> we'll
> >> > > >>>> have
> >> > > >>>>> been
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> frozen
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 1
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release when
> >> > > >>> it's
> >> > > >>>>> ready,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> but I
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Q4
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD" on the
> >> > > >>>>> downloads
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> page
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Est.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the
> estimate,
> >> > > >>>> but I
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> think
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with ApacheCon
> >> > > >>> nicely
> >> > > >>>>> for a
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> preview
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the
> download
> >> > > >>>>> page?
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Have
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> some
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> --
> >> > > >>> alex p
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>.
For what it's worth, lazy consensus is a very important concept in the
Apache Way <https://community.apache.org/committers/lazyConsensus.html>.
Methinks if we got a little more comfortable w/lazy consensus and majority
voting on process <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html> we might
see some quicker evolution on the project.
Not to hijack the thread; just figured I'd point it out since it was on my
mind and it may not be common knowledge.
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:20 PM Sankalp Kohli <ko...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Let’s put this to vote next week unless someone thinks it is not required
>
> > On Sep 25, 2019, at 10:56 AM, sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Can we put it on vote(if required) if no one has more comments?
> >
> >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:44 PM Jonathan Koppenhofer <
> jon@koppedomain.com> wrote:
> >> Nice work... I like this and have no additions/comments at this time
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 4:18 PM sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > We added and changed a lot of things to this doc during a discussion
> in
> >> > NGCC. Can everyone take a look at it and provide feedback.
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:51 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I have left some comments on the document. Apart from a few
> >> > clarifications
> >> > > and some minor changes, I feel its in a good shape. I think we
> should
> >> > move
> >> > > forward with it. We can refine the process, definitions & criteria
> as we
> >> > > learn.
> >> > >
> >> > > Dinesh
> >> > >
> >> > > > On Sep 11, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >> > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > One more call for any additional comments/ feedback on the release
> >> > > > lifecycle document
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > Sumanth
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:01 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >> > > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Submitted patch to add release lifecycle information to the
> website
> >> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15249
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:57 AM Oleksandr Petrov <
> >> > > >> oleksandr.petrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>> Maybe a bit off-topic:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take care of
> beta
> >> > > protocol
> >> > > >>> [1], include released driver versions [2] and remove compact
> storage
> >> > > >>> remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd argue we should
> do it
> >> > > >>> sooner
> >> > > >>> rather than later.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14973
> >> > > >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951
> >> > > >>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >> > > >>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>> Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all the
> >> > incremental
> >> > > >>>> feedback I have thus far.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> Looking for any additional feedback folks may have.
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > >
> >> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <
> >> > scott@paradoxica.net>
> >> > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a round of
> >> > > >>> comments
> >> > > >>>> as
> >> > > >>>>> well.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many of the
> items
> >> > > >>> under
> >> > > >>>>> "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the release of
> an
> >> > > >>> alpha,
> >> > > >>>>> especially those related to correctness/safety, scope lock,
> feature
> >> > > >>>>> completeness, deprecation, and backwards compatibility.
> >> > Establishing
> >> > > a
> >> > > >>>>> higher standard for official project releases (even at the
> alpha
> >> > and
> >> > > >>> beta
> >> > > >>>>> stage) will help us really polish the final build together.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Ideally, I feel that contributors should have completed
> extensive
> >> > > >>>>> testing/validation to ensure that no critical or severe bugs
> exist
> >> > > >>> prior
> >> > > >>>> to
> >> > > >>>>> the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency
> violations,
> >> > > >>>> incorrect
> >> > > >>>>> responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line to this
> >> > effect.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will help us
> focus
> >> > > the
> >> > > >>>>> final stages of the release on gathering feedback from users +
> >> > > >>> developers
> >> > > >>>>> to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with less
> >> > > >>> commonly-used
> >> > > >>>>> client libraries, testing new features, evaluating
> performance and
> >> > > >>>>> stability under their workloads, etc.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> – Scott
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <
> >> > > >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life
> >> > cycle
> >> > > >>>>> document.
> >> > > >>>>> I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any
> >> > additional
> >> > > >>>>> feedback
> >> > > >>>>> folks may have.
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > >
> >> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > >>>>> Sumanth
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <
> >> > > >>> scott@paradoxica.net
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> Echoing Jon’s point here –
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0
> as a
> >> > > >>>>> production
> >> > > >>>>>> ready
> >> > > >>>>>> database for business critical cases”
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and
> >> > > >>>>> achievable,
> >> > > >>>>>> and one I’m legitimately excited about.
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in Confluence, I
> owe
> >> > > >>>>> another
> >> > > >>>>>> pass through. There has been a lot of progress here, but I’ve
> >> > > >>> let
> >> > > >>>>> perfect
> >> > > >>>>>> be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll
> complete
> >> > > >>> that
> >> > > >>>>> pass
> >> > > >>>>>> later this week.
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> Cheers,
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>> — Scott
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <
> djoshi@apache.org
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>> +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan.
> >> > > >>> Jira
> >> > > >>>> to
> >> > > >>>>>> track progress.
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>> Dinesh
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
> >> > > >>>>> jmckenzie@apache.org>
> >> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is
> >> > > >>> cut.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a
> >> > > >>> great
> >> > > >>>>> look
> >> > > >>>>>> for
> >> > > >>>>>>>> the project.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've
> >> > > >>>>> backchanneled
> >> > > >>>>>>>> with) believe this to be true as well, the referenced wiki
> >> > > >>>>> page[1] and
> >> > > >>>>>>>> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date reflection of
> the
> >> > > >>>>> testing
> >> > > >>>>>>>> efforts going on. Is there another place this information
> is
> >> > > >>>>> stored /
> >> > > >>>>>>>> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all
> >> > > >>> coordinated?
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>> [1]
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > >
> >> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> >> > > >>>>>>>> [2]
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > >
> >> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <
> >> > > >>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> >> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jon,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with
> >> > > >>> 3.0
> >> > > >>>>> minor
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod
> till
> >> > > >>>> .10
> >> > > >>>>> is
> >> > > >>>>>> cut.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it
> >> > > >>> will
> >> > > >>>>> take as
> >> > > >>>>>> long
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <
> >> > > >>> jon@jonhaddad.com
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case
> is
> >> > > >>> we
> >> > > >>>>> can
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> announce
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do
> >> > > >>> or
> >> > > >>>>> die"
> >> > > >>>>>> date,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> and
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make promises.
> >> > > >>>>> Sticking with
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> "when
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target,
> >> > > >>> and
> >> > > >>>>> this is
> >> > > >>>>>> imo
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> a
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> good one.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We could
> cut
> >> > > >>>> our
> >> > > >>>>> first
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August and
> >> > > >>> release
> >> > > >>>> in
> >> > > >>>>> Sept.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty good
> spot.
> >> > > >>>>> We've
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> developed
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to spin up
> >> > > >>> dev
> >> > > >>>>> clusters
> >> > > >>>>>> in
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written about
> this a
> >> > > >>>> few
> >> > > >>>>> times
> >> > > >>>>>> in
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up that
> >> > > >>> will
> >> > > >>>>> help show
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> this
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> in more details.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> There's some other quality of life things we should try
> to
> >> > > >>>>> hammer out
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings would be
> >> > > >>> nice,
> >> > > >>>>> for
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> example. Improving documentation (the data modeling
> >> > > >>> section
> >> > > >>>> in
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1], and
> some
> >> > > >>>>>> improvements
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata [2],
> and
> >> > > >>>>> exposing
> >> > > >>>>>> table
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch
> >> > > >>> improvement
> >> > > >>>>> will help
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables will go
> a
> >> > > >>>> long
> >> > > >>>>> way to
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks
> virtual
> >> > > >>>>> tables at
> >> > > >>>>>> the
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing table
> >> > > >>>>> statistics was a
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> big
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help to
> >> > > >>>> operators.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [2]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> [3]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <
> >> > > >>>>> zznate.m@gmail.com>
> >> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sumanth,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this
> >> > > >>> together.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Nate
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting release
> types
> >> > > >>>> and
> >> > > >>>>> exit
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate
> >> > > >>> on.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > >
> >> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sumanth
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> >> > > >>>>> djoshi@apache.org>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for testing.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > >
> >> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release types
> and
> >> > > >>> the
> >> > > >>>>> exit
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab
> at
> >> > > >>>>> this or
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> start
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is expected
> >> > > >>> from
> >> > > >>>>> an
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> alpha,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is
> >> > > >>> this
> >> > > >>>> for
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> alpha,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> beta,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last
> >> > > >>> sept(?)
> >> > > >>>> to
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> freeze
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe its
> really
> >> > > >>>>> time to
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> hit
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it!
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be
> >> > > >>>> changed
> >> > > >>>>> is
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> still
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at all.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the website
> >> > > >>> will
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> definitely
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> help.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> djoshi@apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler <
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a
> >> > > >>> very
> >> > > >>>>> long
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> time.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's
> 4.0
> >> > > >>>>> going to
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> release?"
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he suggested
> >> > > >>>>> possibly Q4
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> 2019.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being
> close
> >> > > >>> by
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> ApacheCon
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Las
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegas
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0
> >> > > >>> alpha/beta/rc
> >> > > >>>>> ready
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that time,
> we'll
> >> > > >>>> have
> >> > > >>>>> been
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> frozen
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 1
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release when
> >> > > >>> it's
> >> > > >>>>> ready,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> but I
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Q4
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD" on the
> >> > > >>>>> downloads
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> page
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Est.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the
> estimate,
> >> > > >>>> but I
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> think
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with ApacheCon
> >> > > >>> nicely
> >> > > >>>>> for a
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> preview
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the
> download
> >> > > >>>>> page?
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Have
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> some
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > >>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>>
> >> > > >>>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> --
> >> > > >>> alex p
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
>
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by Sankalp Kohli <ko...@gmail.com>.
Let’s put this to vote next week unless someone thinks it is not required
> On Sep 25, 2019, at 10:56 AM, sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Can we put it on vote(if required) if no one has more comments?
>
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:44 PM Jonathan Koppenhofer <jo...@koppedomain.com> wrote:
>> Nice work... I like this and have no additions/comments at this time
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 4:18 PM sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > We added and changed a lot of things to this doc during a discussion in
>> > NGCC. Can everyone take a look at it and provide feedback.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:51 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I have left some comments on the document. Apart from a few
>> > clarifications
>> > > and some minor changes, I feel its in a good shape. I think we should
>> > move
>> > > forward with it. We can refine the process, definitions & criteria as we
>> > > learn.
>> > >
>> > > Dinesh
>> > >
>> > > > On Sep 11, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
>> > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > One more call for any additional comments/ feedback on the release
>> > > > lifecycle document
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > Sumanth
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:01 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
>> > > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Submitted patch to add release lifecycle information to the website
>> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15249
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:57 AM Oleksandr Petrov <
>> > > >> oleksandr.petrov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> Maybe a bit off-topic:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take care of beta
>> > > protocol
>> > > >>> [1], include released driver versions [2] and remove compact storage
>> > > >>> remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd argue we should do it
>> > > >>> sooner
>> > > >>> rather than later.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14973
>> > > >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951
>> > > >>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
>> > > >>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>> Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all the
>> > incremental
>> > > >>>> feedback I have thus far.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> Looking for any additional feedback folks may have.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>
>> > >
>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <
>> > scott@paradoxica.net>
>> > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>> Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a round of
>> > > >>> comments
>> > > >>>> as
>> > > >>>>> well.
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many of the items
>> > > >>> under
>> > > >>>>> "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the release of an
>> > > >>> alpha,
>> > > >>>>> especially those related to correctness/safety, scope lock, feature
>> > > >>>>> completeness, deprecation, and backwards compatibility.
>> > Establishing
>> > > a
>> > > >>>>> higher standard for official project releases (even at the alpha
>> > and
>> > > >>> beta
>> > > >>>>> stage) will help us really polish the final build together.
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> Ideally, I feel that contributors should have completed extensive
>> > > >>>>> testing/validation to ensure that no critical or severe bugs exist
>> > > >>> prior
>> > > >>>> to
>> > > >>>>> the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency violations,
>> > > >>>> incorrect
>> > > >>>>> responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line to this
>> > effect.
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will help us focus
>> > > the
>> > > >>>>> final stages of the release on gathering feedback from users +
>> > > >>> developers
>> > > >>>>> to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with less
>> > > >>> commonly-used
>> > > >>>>> client libraries, testing new features, evaluating performance and
>> > > >>>>> stability under their workloads, etc.
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> – Scott
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <
>> > > >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life
>> > cycle
>> > > >>>>> document.
>> > > >>>>> I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any
>> > additional
>> > > >>>>> feedback
>> > > >>>>> folks may have.
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>
>> > >
>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> Thanks,
>> > > >>>>> Sumanth
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <
>> > > >>> scott@paradoxica.net
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> Echoing Jon’s point here –
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0 as a
>> > > >>>>> production
>> > > >>>>>> ready
>> > > >>>>>> database for business critical cases”
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and
>> > > >>>>> achievable,
>> > > >>>>>> and one I’m legitimately excited about.
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in Confluence, I owe
>> > > >>>>> another
>> > > >>>>>> pass through. There has been a lot of progress here, but I’ve
>> > > >>> let
>> > > >>>>> perfect
>> > > >>>>>> be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll complete
>> > > >>> that
>> > > >>>>> pass
>> > > >>>>>> later this week.
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> Cheers,
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>> — Scott
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <djoshi@apache.org
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>> +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan.
>> > > >>> Jira
>> > > >>>> to
>> > > >>>>>> track progress.
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>> Dinesh
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
>> > > >>>>> jmckenzie@apache.org>
>> > > >>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is
>> > > >>> cut.
>> > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a
>> > > >>> great
>> > > >>>>> look
>> > > >>>>>> for
>> > > >>>>>>>> the project.
>> > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
>> > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've
>> > > >>>>> backchanneled
>> > > >>>>>>>> with) believe this to be true as well, the referenced wiki
>> > > >>>>> page[1] and
>> > > >>>>>>>> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date reflection of the
>> > > >>>>> testing
>> > > >>>>>>>> efforts going on. Is there another place this information is
>> > > >>>>> stored /
>> > > >>>>>>>> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all
>> > > >>> coordinated?
>> > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>> [1]
>> > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>
>> > >
>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
>> > > >>>>>>>> [2]
>> > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>
>> > >
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
>> > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <
>> > > >>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
>> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jon,
>> > > >>>>>>>>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with
>> > > >>> 3.0
>> > > >>>>> minor
>> > > >>>>>>>>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till
>> > > >>>> .10
>> > > >>>>> is
>> > > >>>>>> cut.
>> > > >>>>>>>>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it
>> > > >>> will
>> > > >>>>> take as
>> > > >>>>>> long
>> > > >>>>>>>>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > >>>>>>>>> Sankalp
>> > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <
>> > > >>> jon@jonhaddad.com
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case is
>> > > >>> we
>> > > >>>>> can
>> > > >>>>>>>>> announce
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do
>> > > >>> or
>> > > >>>>> die"
>> > > >>>>>> date,
>> > > >>>>>>>>> and
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make promises.
>> > > >>>>> Sticking with
>> > > >>>>>>>>> "when
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target,
>> > > >>> and
>> > > >>>>> this is
>> > > >>>>>> imo
>> > > >>>>>>>>> a
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> good one.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We could cut
>> > > >>>> our
>> > > >>>>> first
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August and
>> > > >>> release
>> > > >>>> in
>> > > >>>>> Sept.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty good spot.
>> > > >>>>> We've
>> > > >>>>>>>>> developed
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to spin up
>> > > >>> dev
>> > > >>>>> clusters
>> > > >>>>>> in
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written about this a
>> > > >>>> few
>> > > >>>>> times
>> > > >>>>>> in
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up that
>> > > >>> will
>> > > >>>>> help show
>> > > >>>>>>>>> this
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> in more details.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> There's some other quality of life things we should try to
>> > > >>>>> hammer out
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings would be
>> > > >>> nice,
>> > > >>>>> for
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> example. Improving documentation (the data modeling
>> > > >>> section
>> > > >>>> in
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1], and some
>> > > >>>>>> improvements
>> > > >>>>>>>>> to
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata [2], and
>> > > >>>>> exposing
>> > > >>>>>> table
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch
>> > > >>> improvement
>> > > >>>>> will help
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables will go a
>> > > >>>> long
>> > > >>>>> way to
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks virtual
>> > > >>>>> tables at
>> > > >>>>>> the
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing table
>> > > >>>>> statistics was a
>> > > >>>>>>>>> big
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help to
>> > > >>>> operators.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <
>> > > >>>>> zznate.m@gmail.com>
>> > > >>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sumanth,
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this
>> > > >>> together.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Nate
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting release types
>> > > >>>> and
>> > > >>>>> exit
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate
>> > > >>> on.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>
>> > >
>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sumanth
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <
>> > > >>>>> djoshi@apache.org>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp,
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for testing.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>
>> > >
>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release types and
>> > > >>> the
>> > > >>>>> exit
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab at
>> > > >>>>> this or
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> start
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is expected
>> > > >>> from
>> > > >>>>> an
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> alpha,
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is
>> > > >>> this
>> > > >>>> for
>> > > >>>>>>>>> alpha,
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> beta,
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last
>> > > >>> sept(?)
>> > > >>>> to
>> > > >>>>>>>>> freeze
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe its really
>> > > >>>>> time to
>> > > >>>>>>>>> hit
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it!
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be
>> > > >>>> changed
>> > > >>>>> is
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> still
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at all.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the website
>> > > >>> will
>> > > >>>>>>>>> definitely
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> help.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <
>> > > >>>>>>>>> djoshi@apache.org
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler <
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a
>> > > >>> very
>> > > >>>>> long
>> > > >>>>>>>>> time.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's 4.0
>> > > >>>>> going to
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> release?"
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he suggested
>> > > >>>>> possibly Q4
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> 2019.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being close
>> > > >>> by
>> > > >>>>>>>>> ApacheCon
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Las
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegas
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0
>> > > >>> alpha/beta/rc
>> > > >>>>> ready
>> > > >>>>>>>>> to
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that time, we'll
>> > > >>>> have
>> > > >>>>> been
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> frozen
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 1
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release when
>> > > >>> it's
>> > > >>>>> ready,
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> but I
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Q4
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD" on the
>> > > >>>>> downloads
>> > > >>>>>>>>> page
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Est.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the estimate,
>> > > >>>> but I
>> > > >>>>>>>>> think
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with ApacheCon
>> > > >>> nicely
>> > > >>>>> for a
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> preview
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the download
>> > > >>>>> page?
>> > > >>>>>>>>> Have
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> some
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > >>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > >>>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > >>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > >>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > >>>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>>
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> --
>> > > >>> alex p
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by Jon Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com>.
I think silence is a "nothing to add". At least it is from me.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 10:57 AM sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can we put it on vote(if required) if no one has more comments?
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:44 PM Jonathan Koppenhofer <jo...@koppedomain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Nice work... I like this and have no additions/comments at this time
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 4:18 PM sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We added and changed a lot of things to this doc during a discussion in
> > > NGCC. Can everyone take a look at it and provide feedback.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:51 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have left some comments on the document. Apart from a few
> > > clarifications
> > > > and some minor changes, I feel its in a good shape. I think we should
> > > move
> > > > forward with it. We can refine the process, definitions & criteria as
> > we
> > > > learn.
> > > >
> > > > Dinesh
> > > >
> > > > > On Sep 11, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > One more call for any additional comments/ feedback on the release
> > > > > lifecycle document
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Sumanth
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:01 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Submitted patch to add release lifecycle information to the
> website
> > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15249
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:57 AM Oleksandr Petrov <
> > > > >> oleksandr.petrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Maybe a bit off-topic:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take care of beta
> > > > protocol
> > > > >>> [1], include released driver versions [2] and remove compact
> > storage
> > > > >>> remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd argue we should do
> > it
> > > > >>> sooner
> > > > >>> rather than later.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14973
> > > > >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951
> > > > >>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > > >>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all the
> > > incremental
> > > > >>>> feedback I have thus far.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Looking for any additional feedback folks may have.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <
> > > scott@paradoxica.net>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a round of
> > > > >>> comments
> > > > >>>> as
> > > > >>>>> well.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many of the
> > items
> > > > >>> under
> > > > >>>>> "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the release of
> an
> > > > >>> alpha,
> > > > >>>>> especially those related to correctness/safety, scope lock,
> > feature
> > > > >>>>> completeness, deprecation, and backwards compatibility.
> > > Establishing
> > > > a
> > > > >>>>> higher standard for official project releases (even at the
> alpha
> > > and
> > > > >>> beta
> > > > >>>>> stage) will help us really polish the final build together.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Ideally, I feel that contributors should have completed
> extensive
> > > > >>>>> testing/validation to ensure that no critical or severe bugs
> > exist
> > > > >>> prior
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>>> the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency
> violations,
> > > > >>>> incorrect
> > > > >>>>> responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line to this
> > > effect.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will help us
> > focus
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>> final stages of the release on gathering feedback from users +
> > > > >>> developers
> > > > >>>>> to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with less
> > > > >>> commonly-used
> > > > >>>>> client libraries, testing new features, evaluating performance
> > and
> > > > >>>>> stability under their workloads, etc.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> – Scott
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <
> > > > >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life
> > > cycle
> > > > >>>>> document.
> > > > >>>>> I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any
> > > additional
> > > > >>>>> feedback
> > > > >>>>> folks may have.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>> Sumanth
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <
> > > > >>> scott@paradoxica.net
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Echoing Jon’s point here –
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0 as
> a
> > > > >>>>> production
> > > > >>>>>> ready
> > > > >>>>>> database for business critical cases”
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and
> > > > >>>>> achievable,
> > > > >>>>>> and one I’m legitimately excited about.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in Confluence, I
> owe
> > > > >>>>> another
> > > > >>>>>> pass through. There has been a lot of progress here, but I’ve
> > > > >>> let
> > > > >>>>> perfect
> > > > >>>>>> be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll complete
> > > > >>> that
> > > > >>>>> pass
> > > > >>>>>> later this week.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> — Scott
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <
> djoshi@apache.org
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan.
> > > > >>> Jira
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>>>> track progress.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Dinesh
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
> > > > >>>>> jmckenzie@apache.org>
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is
> > > > >>> cut.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a
> > > > >>> great
> > > > >>>>> look
> > > > >>>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>> the project.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've
> > > > >>>>> backchanneled
> > > > >>>>>>>> with) believe this to be true as well, the referenced wiki
> > > > >>>>> page[1] and
> > > > >>>>>>>> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date reflection of
> the
> > > > >>>>> testing
> > > > >>>>>>>> efforts going on. Is there another place this information is
> > > > >>>>> stored /
> > > > >>>>>>>> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all
> > > > >>> coordinated?
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > > > >>>>>>>> [2]
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <
> > > > >>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jon,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with
> > > > >>> 3.0
> > > > >>>>> minor
> > > > >>>>>>>>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod
> till
> > > > >>>> .10
> > > > >>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>> cut.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it
> > > > >>> will
> > > > >>>>> take as
> > > > >>>>>> long
> > > > >>>>>>>>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <
> > > > >>> jon@jonhaddad.com
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case is
> > > > >>> we
> > > > >>>>> can
> > > > >>>>>>>>> announce
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do
> > > > >>> or
> > > > >>>>> die"
> > > > >>>>>> date,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make promises.
> > > > >>>>> Sticking with
> > > > >>>>>>>>> "when
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target,
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>>>> this is
> > > > >>>>>> imo
> > > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> good one.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We could
> cut
> > > > >>>> our
> > > > >>>>> first
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August and
> > > > >>> release
> > > > >>>> in
> > > > >>>>> Sept.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty good spot.
> > > > >>>>> We've
> > > > >>>>>>>>> developed
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to spin up
> > > > >>> dev
> > > > >>>>> clusters
> > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written about this
> a
> > > > >>>> few
> > > > >>>>> times
> > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up that
> > > > >>> will
> > > > >>>>> help show
> > > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> in more details.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> There's some other quality of life things we should try to
> > > > >>>>> hammer out
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings would be
> > > > >>> nice,
> > > > >>>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> example. Improving documentation (the data modeling
> > > > >>> section
> > > > >>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1], and
> some
> > > > >>>>>> improvements
> > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata [2], and
> > > > >>>>> exposing
> > > > >>>>>> table
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch
> > > > >>> improvement
> > > > >>>>> will help
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables will go a
> > > > >>>> long
> > > > >>>>> way to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks
> virtual
> > > > >>>>> tables at
> > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing table
> > > > >>>>> statistics was a
> > > > >>>>>>>>> big
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help to
> > > > >>>> operators.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <
> > > > >>>>> zznate.m@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sumanth,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this
> > > > >>> together.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Nate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting release
> types
> > > > >>>> and
> > > > >>>>> exit
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate
> > > > >>> on.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sumanth
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> > > > >>>>> djoshi@apache.org>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for testing.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release types and
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>>>> exit
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab
> at
> > > > >>>>> this or
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> start
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is expected
> > > > >>> from
> > > > >>>>> an
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> alpha,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is
> > > > >>> this
> > > > >>>> for
> > > > >>>>>>>>> alpha,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> beta,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last
> > > > >>> sept(?)
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> freeze
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe its
> really
> > > > >>>>> time to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> hit
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be
> > > > >>>> changed
> > > > >>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> still
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at all.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the website
> > > > >>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> help.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <
> > > > >>>>>>>>> djoshi@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a
> > > > >>> very
> > > > >>>>> long
> > > > >>>>>>>>> time.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's 4.0
> > > > >>>>> going to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> release?"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he suggested
> > > > >>>>> possibly Q4
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> 2019.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being close
> > > > >>> by
> > > > >>>>>>>>> ApacheCon
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Las
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegas
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0
> > > > >>> alpha/beta/rc
> > > > >>>>> ready
> > > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that time, we'll
> > > > >>>> have
> > > > >>>>> been
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> frozen
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 1
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release when
> > > > >>> it's
> > > > >>>>> ready,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> but I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Q4
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD" on the
> > > > >>>>> downloads
> > > > >>>>>>>>> page
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Est.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the estimate,
> > > > >>>> but I
> > > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with ApacheCon
> > > > >>> nicely
> > > > >>>>> for a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> preview
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the
> download
> > > > >>>>> page?
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > >>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> alex p
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com>.
Can we put it on vote(if required) if no one has more comments?
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:44 PM Jonathan Koppenhofer <jo...@koppedomain.com>
wrote:
> Nice work... I like this and have no additions/comments at this time
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 4:18 PM sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > We added and changed a lot of things to this doc during a discussion in
> > NGCC. Can everyone take a look at it and provide feedback.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:51 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I have left some comments on the document. Apart from a few
> > clarifications
> > > and some minor changes, I feel its in a good shape. I think we should
> > move
> > > forward with it. We can refine the process, definitions & criteria as
> we
> > > learn.
> > >
> > > Dinesh
> > >
> > > > On Sep 11, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One more call for any additional comments/ feedback on the release
> > > > lifecycle document
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Sumanth
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:01 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Submitted patch to add release lifecycle information to the website
> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15249
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:57 AM Oleksandr Petrov <
> > > >> oleksandr.petrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Maybe a bit off-topic:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take care of beta
> > > protocol
> > > >>> [1], include released driver versions [2] and remove compact
> storage
> > > >>> remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd argue we should do
> it
> > > >>> sooner
> > > >>> rather than later.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14973
> > > >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951
> > > >>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > >>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all the
> > incremental
> > > >>>> feedback I have thus far.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Looking for any additional feedback folks may have.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <
> > scott@paradoxica.net>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a round of
> > > >>> comments
> > > >>>> as
> > > >>>>> well.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many of the
> items
> > > >>> under
> > > >>>>> "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the release of an
> > > >>> alpha,
> > > >>>>> especially those related to correctness/safety, scope lock,
> feature
> > > >>>>> completeness, deprecation, and backwards compatibility.
> > Establishing
> > > a
> > > >>>>> higher standard for official project releases (even at the alpha
> > and
> > > >>> beta
> > > >>>>> stage) will help us really polish the final build together.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Ideally, I feel that contributors should have completed extensive
> > > >>>>> testing/validation to ensure that no critical or severe bugs
> exist
> > > >>> prior
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>> the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency violations,
> > > >>>> incorrect
> > > >>>>> responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line to this
> > effect.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will help us
> focus
> > > the
> > > >>>>> final stages of the release on gathering feedback from users +
> > > >>> developers
> > > >>>>> to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with less
> > > >>> commonly-used
> > > >>>>> client libraries, testing new features, evaluating performance
> and
> > > >>>>> stability under their workloads, etc.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> – Scott
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <
> > > >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life
> > cycle
> > > >>>>> document.
> > > >>>>> I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any
> > additional
> > > >>>>> feedback
> > > >>>>> folks may have.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>> Sumanth
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <
> > > >>> scott@paradoxica.net
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Echoing Jon’s point here –
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0 as a
> > > >>>>> production
> > > >>>>>> ready
> > > >>>>>> database for business critical cases”
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and
> > > >>>>> achievable,
> > > >>>>>> and one I’m legitimately excited about.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in Confluence, I owe
> > > >>>>> another
> > > >>>>>> pass through. There has been a lot of progress here, but I’ve
> > > >>> let
> > > >>>>> perfect
> > > >>>>>> be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll complete
> > > >>> that
> > > >>>>> pass
> > > >>>>>> later this week.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> — Scott
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <djoshi@apache.org
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan.
> > > >>> Jira
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>>> track progress.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Dinesh
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
> > > >>>>> jmckenzie@apache.org>
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is
> > > >>> cut.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a
> > > >>> great
> > > >>>>> look
> > > >>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>> the project.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've
> > > >>>>> backchanneled
> > > >>>>>>>> with) believe this to be true as well, the referenced wiki
> > > >>>>> page[1] and
> > > >>>>>>>> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date reflection of the
> > > >>>>> testing
> > > >>>>>>>> efforts going on. Is there another place this information is
> > > >>>>> stored /
> > > >>>>>>>> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all
> > > >>> coordinated?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> [1]
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > > >>>>>>>> [2]
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <
> > > >>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jon,
> > > >>>>>>>>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with
> > > >>> 3.0
> > > >>>>> minor
> > > >>>>>>>>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till
> > > >>>> .10
> > > >>>>> is
> > > >>>>>> cut.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it
> > > >>> will
> > > >>>>> take as
> > > >>>>>> long
> > > >>>>>>>>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <
> > > >>> jon@jonhaddad.com
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case is
> > > >>> we
> > > >>>>> can
> > > >>>>>>>>> announce
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do
> > > >>> or
> > > >>>>> die"
> > > >>>>>> date,
> > > >>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make promises.
> > > >>>>> Sticking with
> > > >>>>>>>>> "when
> > > >>>>>>>>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target,
> > > >>> and
> > > >>>>> this is
> > > >>>>>> imo
> > > >>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>> good one.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We could cut
> > > >>>> our
> > > >>>>> first
> > > >>>>>>>>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August and
> > > >>> release
> > > >>>> in
> > > >>>>> Sept.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty good spot.
> > > >>>>> We've
> > > >>>>>>>>> developed
> > > >>>>>>>>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to spin up
> > > >>> dev
> > > >>>>> clusters
> > > >>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written about this a
> > > >>>> few
> > > >>>>> times
> > > >>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up that
> > > >>> will
> > > >>>>> help show
> > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>> in more details.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> There's some other quality of life things we should try to
> > > >>>>> hammer out
> > > >>>>>>>>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings would be
> > > >>> nice,
> > > >>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>> example. Improving documentation (the data modeling
> > > >>> section
> > > >>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1], and some
> > > >>>>>> improvements
> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata [2], and
> > > >>>>> exposing
> > > >>>>>> table
> > > >>>>>>>>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch
> > > >>> improvement
> > > >>>>> will help
> > > >>>>>>>>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables will go a
> > > >>>> long
> > > >>>>> way to
> > > >>>>>>>>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks virtual
> > > >>>>> tables at
> > > >>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing table
> > > >>>>> statistics was a
> > > >>>>>>>>> big
> > > >>>>>>>>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help to
> > > >>>> operators.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
> > > >>>>>>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <
> > > >>>>> zznate.m@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sumanth,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this
> > > >>> together.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Nate
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting release types
> > > >>>> and
> > > >>>>> exit
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate
> > > >>> on.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sumanth
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> > > >>>>> djoshi@apache.org>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for testing.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release types and
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>>> exit
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab at
> > > >>>>> this or
> > > >>>>>>>>>> start
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
> > > >>>>>>>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is expected
> > > >>> from
> > > >>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> alpha,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is
> > > >>> this
> > > >>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>> alpha,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> beta,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
> > > >>>>>>>>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last
> > > >>> sept(?)
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>> freeze
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe its really
> > > >>>>> time to
> > > >>>>>>>>> hit
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be
> > > >>>> changed
> > > >>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>> still
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at all.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the website
> > > >>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>> definitely
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> help.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <
> > > >>>>>>>>> djoshi@apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a
> > > >>> very
> > > >>>>> long
> > > >>>>>>>>> time.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's 4.0
> > > >>>>> going to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> release?"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he suggested
> > > >>>>> possibly Q4
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 2019.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being close
> > > >>> by
> > > >>>>>>>>> ApacheCon
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Las
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegas
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0
> > > >>> alpha/beta/rc
> > > >>>>> ready
> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that time, we'll
> > > >>>> have
> > > >>>>> been
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> frozen
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 1
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release when
> > > >>> it's
> > > >>>>> ready,
> > > >>>>>>>>>> but I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Q4
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD" on the
> > > >>>>> downloads
> > > >>>>>>>>> page
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Est.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the estimate,
> > > >>>> but I
> > > >>>>>>>>> think
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with ApacheCon
> > > >>> nicely
> > > >>>>> for a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> preview
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the download
> > > >>>>> page?
> > > >>>>>>>>> Have
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> some
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > >>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > >>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> alex p
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by Jonathan Koppenhofer <jo...@koppedomain.com>.
Nice work... I like this and have no additions/comments at this time
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 4:18 PM sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We added and changed a lot of things to this doc during a discussion in
> NGCC. Can everyone take a look at it and provide feedback.
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:51 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I have left some comments on the document. Apart from a few
> clarifications
> > and some minor changes, I feel its in a good shape. I think we should
> move
> > forward with it. We can refine the process, definitions & criteria as we
> > learn.
> >
> > Dinesh
> >
> > > On Sep 11, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > One more call for any additional comments/ feedback on the release
> > > lifecycle document
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Sumanth
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:01 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Submitted patch to add release lifecycle information to the website
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15249
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:57 AM Oleksandr Petrov <
> > >> oleksandr.petrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Maybe a bit off-topic:
> > >>>
> > >>> Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take care of beta
> > protocol
> > >>> [1], include released driver versions [2] and remove compact storage
> > >>> remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd argue we should do it
> > >>> sooner
> > >>> rather than later.
> > >>>
> > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14973
> > >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951
> > >>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > >>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all the
> incremental
> > >>>> feedback I have thus far.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Looking for any additional feedback folks may have.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <
> scott@paradoxica.net>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a round of
> > >>> comments
> > >>>> as
> > >>>>> well.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many of the items
> > >>> under
> > >>>>> "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the release of an
> > >>> alpha,
> > >>>>> especially those related to correctness/safety, scope lock, feature
> > >>>>> completeness, deprecation, and backwards compatibility.
> Establishing
> > a
> > >>>>> higher standard for official project releases (even at the alpha
> and
> > >>> beta
> > >>>>> stage) will help us really polish the final build together.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Ideally, I feel that contributors should have completed extensive
> > >>>>> testing/validation to ensure that no critical or severe bugs exist
> > >>> prior
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>> the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency violations,
> > >>>> incorrect
> > >>>>> responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line to this
> effect.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will help us focus
> > the
> > >>>>> final stages of the release on gathering feedback from users +
> > >>> developers
> > >>>>> to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with less
> > >>> commonly-used
> > >>>>> client libraries, testing new features, evaluating performance and
> > >>>>> stability under their workloads, etc.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> – Scott
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <
> > >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life
> cycle
> > >>>>> document.
> > >>>>> I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any
> additional
> > >>>>> feedback
> > >>>>> folks may have.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>> Sumanth
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <
> > >>> scott@paradoxica.net
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Echoing Jon’s point here –
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0 as a
> > >>>>> production
> > >>>>>> ready
> > >>>>>> database for business critical cases”
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and
> > >>>>> achievable,
> > >>>>>> and one I’m legitimately excited about.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in Confluence, I owe
> > >>>>> another
> > >>>>>> pass through. There has been a lot of progress here, but I’ve
> > >>> let
> > >>>>> perfect
> > >>>>>> be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll complete
> > >>> that
> > >>>>> pass
> > >>>>>> later this week.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> — Scott
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <djoshi@apache.org
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan.
> > >>> Jira
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>> track progress.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Dinesh
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
> > >>>>> jmckenzie@apache.org>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is
> > >>> cut.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a
> > >>> great
> > >>>>> look
> > >>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>> the project.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've
> > >>>>> backchanneled
> > >>>>>>>> with) believe this to be true as well, the referenced wiki
> > >>>>> page[1] and
> > >>>>>>>> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date reflection of the
> > >>>>> testing
> > >>>>>>>> efforts going on. Is there another place this information is
> > >>>>> stored /
> > >>>>>>>> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all
> > >>> coordinated?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > >>>>>>>> [2]
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <
> > >>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jon,
> > >>>>>>>>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with
> > >>> 3.0
> > >>>>> minor
> > >>>>>>>>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till
> > >>>> .10
> > >>>>> is
> > >>>>>> cut.
> > >>>>>>>>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it
> > >>> will
> > >>>>> take as
> > >>>>>> long
> > >>>>>>>>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <
> > >>> jon@jonhaddad.com
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case is
> > >>> we
> > >>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>>> announce
> > >>>>>>>>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do
> > >>> or
> > >>>>> die"
> > >>>>>> date,
> > >>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make promises.
> > >>>>> Sticking with
> > >>>>>>>>> "when
> > >>>>>>>>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target,
> > >>> and
> > >>>>> this is
> > >>>>>> imo
> > >>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>> good one.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We could cut
> > >>>> our
> > >>>>> first
> > >>>>>>>>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August and
> > >>> release
> > >>>> in
> > >>>>> Sept.
> > >>>>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty good spot.
> > >>>>> We've
> > >>>>>>>>> developed
> > >>>>>>>>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to spin up
> > >>> dev
> > >>>>> clusters
> > >>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written about this a
> > >>>> few
> > >>>>> times
> > >>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up that
> > >>> will
> > >>>>> help show
> > >>>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>> in more details.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> There's some other quality of life things we should try to
> > >>>>> hammer out
> > >>>>>>>>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings would be
> > >>> nice,
> > >>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>> example. Improving documentation (the data modeling
> > >>> section
> > >>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1], and some
> > >>>>>> improvements
> > >>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata [2], and
> > >>>>> exposing
> > >>>>>> table
> > >>>>>>>>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch
> > >>> improvement
> > >>>>> will help
> > >>>>>>>>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables will go a
> > >>>> long
> > >>>>> way to
> > >>>>>>>>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks virtual
> > >>>>> tables at
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing table
> > >>>>> statistics was a
> > >>>>>>>>> big
> > >>>>>>>>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help to
> > >>>> operators.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
> > >>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
> > >>>>>>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <
> > >>>>> zznate.m@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sumanth,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this
> > >>> together.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> -Nate
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > >>>>>>>>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting release types
> > >>>> and
> > >>>>> exit
> > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate
> > >>> on.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sumanth
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> > >>>>> djoshi@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for testing.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release types and
> > >>> the
> > >>>>> exit
> > >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab at
> > >>>>> this or
> > >>>>>>>>>> start
> > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
> > >>>>>>>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is expected
> > >>> from
> > >>>>> an
> > >>>>>>>>>>> alpha,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is
> > >>> this
> > >>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>> alpha,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> beta,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
> > >>>>>>>>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last
> > >>> sept(?)
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>> freeze
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe its really
> > >>>>> time to
> > >>>>>>>>> hit
> > >>>>>>>>>>> it!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be
> > >>>> changed
> > >>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>> still
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at all.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the website
> > >>> will
> > >>>>>>>>> definitely
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> help.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <
> > >>>>>>>>> djoshi@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a
> > >>> very
> > >>>>> long
> > >>>>>>>>> time.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's 4.0
> > >>>>> going to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> release?"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he suggested
> > >>>>> possibly Q4
> > >>>>>>>>>> 2019.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being close
> > >>> by
> > >>>>>>>>> ApacheCon
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Las
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegas
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0
> > >>> alpha/beta/rc
> > >>>>> ready
> > >>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that time, we'll
> > >>>> have
> > >>>>> been
> > >>>>>>>>>>> frozen
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 1
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release when
> > >>> it's
> > >>>>> ready,
> > >>>>>>>>>> but I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Q4
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD" on the
> > >>>>> downloads
> > >>>>>>>>> page
> > >>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Est.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the estimate,
> > >>>> but I
> > >>>>>>>>> think
> > >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with ApacheCon
> > >>> nicely
> > >>>>> for a
> > >>>>>>>>>>> preview
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the download
> > >>>>> page?
> > >>>>>>>>> Have
> > >>>>>>>>>>> some
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >>>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> alex p
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com>.
We added and changed a lot of things to this doc during a discussion in
NGCC. Can everyone take a look at it and provide feedback.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:51 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
> I have left some comments on the document. Apart from a few clarifications
> and some minor changes, I feel its in a good shape. I think we should move
> forward with it. We can refine the process, definitions & criteria as we
> learn.
>
> Dinesh
>
> > On Sep 11, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > One more call for any additional comments/ feedback on the release
> > lifecycle document
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sumanth
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:01 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Submitted patch to add release lifecycle information to the website
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15249
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:57 AM Oleksandr Petrov <
> >> oleksandr.petrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Maybe a bit off-topic:
> >>>
> >>> Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take care of beta
> protocol
> >>> [1], include released driver versions [2] and remove compact storage
> >>> remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd argue we should do it
> >>> sooner
> >>> rather than later.
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14973
> >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951
> >>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all the incremental
> >>>> feedback I have thus far.
> >>>>
> >>>> Looking for any additional feedback folks may have.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a round of
> >>> comments
> >>>> as
> >>>>> well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many of the items
> >>> under
> >>>>> "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the release of an
> >>> alpha,
> >>>>> especially those related to correctness/safety, scope lock, feature
> >>>>> completeness, deprecation, and backwards compatibility. Establishing
> a
> >>>>> higher standard for official project releases (even at the alpha and
> >>> beta
> >>>>> stage) will help us really polish the final build together.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ideally, I feel that contributors should have completed extensive
> >>>>> testing/validation to ensure that no critical or severe bugs exist
> >>> prior
> >>>> to
> >>>>> the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency violations,
> >>>> incorrect
> >>>>> responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line to this effect.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will help us focus
> the
> >>>>> final stages of the release on gathering feedback from users +
> >>> developers
> >>>>> to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with less
> >>> commonly-used
> >>>>> client libraries, testing new features, evaluating performance and
> >>>>> stability under their workloads, etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> – Scott
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <
> >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life cycle
> >>>>> document.
> >>>>> I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any additional
> >>>>> feedback
> >>>>> folks may have.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Sumanth
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <
> >>> scott@paradoxica.net
> >>>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Echoing Jon’s point here –
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0 as a
> >>>>> production
> >>>>>> ready
> >>>>>> database for business critical cases”
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and
> >>>>> achievable,
> >>>>>> and one I’m legitimately excited about.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in Confluence, I owe
> >>>>> another
> >>>>>> pass through. There has been a lot of progress here, but I’ve
> >>> let
> >>>>> perfect
> >>>>>> be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll complete
> >>> that
> >>>>> pass
> >>>>>> later this week.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> — Scott
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <djoshi@apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan.
> >>> Jira
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> track progress.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dinesh
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
> >>>>> jmckenzie@apache.org>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is
> >>> cut.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a
> >>> great
> >>>>> look
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> the project.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've
> >>>>> backchanneled
> >>>>>>>> with) believe this to be true as well, the referenced wiki
> >>>>> page[1] and
> >>>>>>>> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date reflection of the
> >>>>> testing
> >>>>>>>> efforts going on. Is there another place this information is
> >>>>> stored /
> >>>>>>>> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all
> >>> coordinated?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> >>>>>>>> [2]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <
> >>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Jon,
> >>>>>>>>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with
> >>> 3.0
> >>>>> minor
> >>>>>>>>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till
> >>>> .10
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>> cut.
> >>>>>>>>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it
> >>> will
> >>>>> take as
> >>>>>> long
> >>>>>>>>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <
> >>> jon@jonhaddad.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case is
> >>> we
> >>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>> announce
> >>>>>>>>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do
> >>> or
> >>>>> die"
> >>>>>> date,
> >>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make promises.
> >>>>> Sticking with
> >>>>>>>>> "when
> >>>>>>>>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target,
> >>> and
> >>>>> this is
> >>>>>> imo
> >>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>> good one.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We could cut
> >>>> our
> >>>>> first
> >>>>>>>>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August and
> >>> release
> >>>> in
> >>>>> Sept.
> >>>>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> >>>>>>>>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty good spot.
> >>>>> We've
> >>>>>>>>> developed
> >>>>>>>>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to spin up
> >>> dev
> >>>>> clusters
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written about this a
> >>>> few
> >>>>> times
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up that
> >>> will
> >>>>> help show
> >>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>> in more details.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> There's some other quality of life things we should try to
> >>>>> hammer out
> >>>>>>>>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings would be
> >>> nice,
> >>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>> example. Improving documentation (the data modeling
> >>> section
> >>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1], and some
> >>>>>> improvements
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata [2], and
> >>>>> exposing
> >>>>>> table
> >>>>>>>>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch
> >>> improvement
> >>>>> will help
> >>>>>>>>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables will go a
> >>>> long
> >>>>> way to
> >>>>>>>>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks virtual
> >>>>> tables at
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing table
> >>>>> statistics was a
> >>>>>>>>> big
> >>>>>>>>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help to
> >>>> operators.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
> >>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
> >>>>>>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <
> >>>>> zznate.m@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sumanth,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this
> >>> together.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>>> -Nate
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >>>>>>>>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting release types
> >>>> and
> >>>>> exit
> >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate
> >>> on.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sumanth
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> >>>>> djoshi@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for testing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release types and
> >>> the
> >>>>> exit
> >>>>>>>>>>> criteria
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab at
> >>>>> this or
> >>>>>>>>>> start
> >>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
> >>>>>>>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is expected
> >>> from
> >>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>> alpha,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is
> >>> this
> >>>> for
> >>>>>>>>> alpha,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> beta,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
> >>>>>>>>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last
> >>> sept(?)
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> freeze
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe its really
> >>>>> time to
> >>>>>>>>> hit
> >>>>>>>>>>> it!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be
> >>>> changed
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>> still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at all.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the website
> >>> will
> >>>>>>>>> definitely
> >>>>>>>>>>>> help.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <
> >>>>>>>>> djoshi@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a
> >>> very
> >>>>> long
> >>>>>>>>> time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's 4.0
> >>>>> going to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> release?"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he suggested
> >>>>> possibly Q4
> >>>>>>>>>> 2019.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being close
> >>> by
> >>>>>>>>> ApacheCon
> >>>>>>>>>>> Las
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegas
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0
> >>> alpha/beta/rc
> >>>>> ready
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that time, we'll
> >>>> have
> >>>>> been
> >>>>>>>>>>> frozen
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release when
> >>> it's
> >>>>> ready,
> >>>>>>>>>> but I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Q4
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD" on the
> >>>>> downloads
> >>>>>>>>> page
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Est.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the estimate,
> >>>> but I
> >>>>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with ApacheCon
> >>> nicely
> >>>>> for a
> >>>>>>>>>>> preview
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the download
> >>>>> page?
> >>>>>>>>> Have
> >>>>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> alex p
> >>>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>.
I have left some comments on the document. Apart from a few clarifications and some minor changes, I feel its in a good shape. I think we should move forward with it. We can refine the process, definitions & criteria as we learn.
Dinesh
> On Sep 11, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <su...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One more call for any additional comments/ feedback on the release
> lifecycle document
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
>
> Thanks,
> Sumanth
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:01 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Submitted patch to add release lifecycle information to the website
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15249
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:57 AM Oleksandr Petrov <
>> oleksandr.petrov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe a bit off-topic:
>>>
>>> Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take care of beta protocol
>>> [1], include released driver versions [2] and remove compact storage
>>> remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd argue we should do it
>>> sooner
>>> rather than later.
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14973
>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951
>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all the incremental
>>>> feedback I have thus far.
>>>>
>>>> Looking for any additional feedback folks may have.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a round of
>>> comments
>>>> as
>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many of the items
>>> under
>>>>> "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the release of an
>>> alpha,
>>>>> especially those related to correctness/safety, scope lock, feature
>>>>> completeness, deprecation, and backwards compatibility. Establishing a
>>>>> higher standard for official project releases (even at the alpha and
>>> beta
>>>>> stage) will help us really polish the final build together.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ideally, I feel that contributors should have completed extensive
>>>>> testing/validation to ensure that no critical or severe bugs exist
>>> prior
>>>> to
>>>>> the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency violations,
>>>> incorrect
>>>>> responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line to this effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will help us focus the
>>>>> final stages of the release on gathering feedback from users +
>>> developers
>>>>> to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with less
>>> commonly-used
>>>>> client libraries, testing new features, evaluating performance and
>>>>> stability under their workloads, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> – Scott
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <
>>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life cycle
>>>>> document.
>>>>> I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any additional
>>>>> feedback
>>>>> folks may have.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Sumanth
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <
>>> scott@paradoxica.net
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Echoing Jon’s point here –
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0 as a
>>>>> production
>>>>>> ready
>>>>>> database for business critical cases”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and
>>>>> achievable,
>>>>>> and one I’m legitimately excited about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in Confluence, I owe
>>>>> another
>>>>>> pass through. There has been a lot of progress here, but I’ve
>>> let
>>>>> perfect
>>>>>> be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll complete
>>> that
>>>>> pass
>>>>>> later this week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> — Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <djoshi@apache.org
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan.
>>> Jira
>>>> to
>>>>>> track progress.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dinesh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
>>>>> jmckenzie@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is
>>> cut.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a
>>> great
>>>>> look
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> the project.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've
>>>>> backchanneled
>>>>>>>> with) believe this to be true as well, the referenced wiki
>>>>> page[1] and
>>>>>>>> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date reflection of the
>>>>> testing
>>>>>>>> efforts going on. Is there another place this information is
>>>>> stored /
>>>>>>>> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all
>>> coordinated?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <
>>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Jon,
>>>>>>>>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with
>>> 3.0
>>>>> minor
>>>>>>>>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till
>>>> .10
>>>>> is
>>>>>> cut.
>>>>>>>>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it
>>> will
>>>>> take as
>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Sankalp
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <
>>> jon@jonhaddad.com
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case is
>>> we
>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> announce
>>>>>>>>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do
>>> or
>>>>> die"
>>>>>> date,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make promises.
>>>>> Sticking with
>>>>>>>>> "when
>>>>>>>>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target,
>>> and
>>>>> this is
>>>>>> imo
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> good one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We could cut
>>>> our
>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August and
>>> release
>>>> in
>>>>> Sept.
>>>>>>>>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
>>>>>>>>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty good spot.
>>>>> We've
>>>>>>>>> developed
>>>>>>>>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to spin up
>>> dev
>>>>> clusters
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written about this a
>>>> few
>>>>> times
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up that
>>> will
>>>>> help show
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> in more details.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There's some other quality of life things we should try to
>>>>> hammer out
>>>>>>>>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings would be
>>> nice,
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> example. Improving documentation (the data modeling
>>> section
>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1], and some
>>>>>> improvements
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata [2], and
>>>>> exposing
>>>>>> table
>>>>>>>>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch
>>> improvement
>>>>> will help
>>>>>>>>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables will go a
>>>> long
>>>>> way to
>>>>>>>>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks virtual
>>>>> tables at
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing table
>>>>> statistics was a
>>>>>>>>> big
>>>>>>>>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help to
>>>> operators.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
>>>>>>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
>>>>>>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <
>>>>> zznate.m@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sumanth,
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this
>>> together.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> -Nate
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
>>>>>>>>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting release types
>>>> and
>>>>> exit
>>>>>>>>>>> criteria
>>>>>>>>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate
>>> on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sumanth
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <
>>>>> djoshi@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for testing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release types and
>>> the
>>>>> exit
>>>>>>>>>>> criteria
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab at
>>>>> this or
>>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
>>>>>>>>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is expected
>>> from
>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>> alpha,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is
>>> this
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> alpha,
>>>>>>>>>>>> beta,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sankalp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
>>>>>>>>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last
>>> sept(?)
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> freeze
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe its really
>>>>> time to
>>>>>>>>> hit
>>>>>>>>>>> it!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be
>>>> changed
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the website
>>> will
>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>>>>> help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <
>>>>>>>>> djoshi@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a
>>> very
>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's 4.0
>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>>>>>> release?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he suggested
>>>>> possibly Q4
>>>>>>>>>> 2019.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being close
>>> by
>>>>>>>>> ApacheCon
>>>>>>>>>>> Las
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0
>>> alpha/beta/rc
>>>>> ready
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that time, we'll
>>>> have
>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>> frozen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release when
>>> it's
>>>>> ready,
>>>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think Q4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD" on the
>>>>> downloads
>>>>>>>>> page
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Est.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the estimate,
>>>> but I
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with ApacheCon
>>> nicely
>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>> preview
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the download
>>>>> page?
>>>>>>>>> Have
>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> alex p
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by Jonathan Koppenhofer <jo...@koppedomain.com>.
Is it common to have such strict release criteria from RC to GA...
Release Candidate (RC)
-
Thorough testing is performed, and if no bugs are found within a testing
period of one month, release is promoted to GA.
-
If bugs are found, fixes are made and above step is repeated
That seems overly tough criteria (no bugs for a month?). Maybe this needs
to be clarified to state the severity of bug in which a promotion will not
happen, and the clock will start over? Or am I misinterpretting.
Otherwise, yes, this is something I can get onboard with. Thanks!
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 11:16 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> One more call for any additional comments/ feedback on the release
> lifecycle document
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
>
> Thanks,
> Sumanth
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:01 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Submitted patch to add release lifecycle information to the website
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15249
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:57 AM Oleksandr Petrov <
> > oleksandr.petrov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe a bit off-topic:
> >>
> >> Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take care of beta
> protocol
> >> [1], include released driver versions [2] and remove compact storage
> >> remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd argue we should do it
> >> sooner
> >> rather than later.
> >>
> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14973
> >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951
> >> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all the incremental
> >> > feedback I have thus far.
> >> >
> >> > Looking for any additional feedback folks may have.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a round of
> >> comments
> >> > as
> >> > > well.
> >> > >
> >> > > Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many of the items
> >> under
> >> > > "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the release of an
> >> alpha,
> >> > > especially those related to correctness/safety, scope lock, feature
> >> > > completeness, deprecation, and backwards compatibility.
> Establishing a
> >> > > higher standard for official project releases (even at the alpha and
> >> beta
> >> > > stage) will help us really polish the final build together.
> >> > >
> >> > > Ideally, I feel that contributors should have completed extensive
> >> > > testing/validation to ensure that no critical or severe bugs exist
> >> prior
> >> > to
> >> > > the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency violations,
> >> > incorrect
> >> > > responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line to this
> effect.
> >> > >
> >> > > Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will help us focus
> the
> >> > > final stages of the release on gathering feedback from users +
> >> developers
> >> > > to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with less
> >> commonly-used
> >> > > client libraries, testing new features, evaluating performance and
> >> > > stability under their workloads, etc.
> >> > >
> >> > > – Scott
> >> > >
> >> > > On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <
> >> > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life
> cycle
> >> > > document.
> >> > > I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any
> additional
> >> > > feedback
> >> > > folks may have.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Sumanth
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <
> >> scott@paradoxica.net
> >> > >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Echoing Jon’s point here –
> >> > > >
> >> > > > JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0 as
> a
> >> > > production
> >> > > > ready
> >> > > > database for business critical cases”
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and
> >> > > achievable,
> >> > > > and one I’m legitimately excited about.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in Confluence, I
> owe
> >> > > another
> >> > > > pass through. There has been a lot of progress here, but I’ve
> >> let
> >> > > perfect
> >> > > > be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll complete
> >> that
> >> > > pass
> >> > > > later this week.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Cheers,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > — Scott
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <
> djoshi@apache.org
> >> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan.
> >> Jira
> >> > to
> >> > > > track progress.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Dinesh
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
> >> > > jmckenzie@apache.org>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is
> >> cut.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a
> >> great
> >> > > look
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > >> the project.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've
> >> > > backchanneled
> >> > > > >> with) believe this to be true as well, the referenced wiki
> >> > > page[1] and
> >> > > > >> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date reflection of
> the
> >> > > testing
> >> > > > >> efforts going on. Is there another place this information
> is
> >> > > stored /
> >> > > > >> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all
> >> coordinated?
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> [1]
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> >> > > > >> [2]
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <
> >> > > kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> >> > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >>> Hi Jon,
> >> > > > >>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with
> >> 3.0
> >> > > minor
> >> > > > >>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod
> till
> >> > .10
> >> > > is
> >> > > > cut.
> >> > > > >>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it
> >> will
> >> > > take as
> >> > > > long
> >> > > > >>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this.
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>> Thanks,
> >> > > > >>> Sankalp
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <
> >> jon@jonhaddad.com
> >> > >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case
> is
> >> we
> >> > > can
> >> > > > >>> announce
> >> > > > >>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do
> >> or
> >> > > die"
> >> > > > date,
> >> > > > >>> and
> >> > > > >>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make promises.
> >> > > Sticking with
> >> > > > >>> "when
> >> > > > >>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target,
> >> and
> >> > > this is
> >> > > > imo
> >> > > > >>> a
> >> > > > >>>> good one.
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We could
> cut
> >> > our
> >> > > first
> >> > > > >>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August and
> >> release
> >> > in
> >> > > Sept.
> >> > > > >>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> >> > > > >>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty good
> spot.
> >> > > We've
> >> > > > >>> developed
> >> > > > >>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to spin up
> >> dev
> >> > > clusters
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > >>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written about
> this a
> >> > few
> >> > > times
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > >>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up that
> >> will
> >> > > help show
> >> > > > >>> this
> >> > > > >>>> in more details.
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>> There's some other quality of life things we should try
> to
> >> > > hammer out
> >> > > > >>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings would be
> >> nice,
> >> > > for
> >> > > > >>>> example. Improving documentation (the data modeling
> >> section
> >> > in
> >> > > > >>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1], and
> some
> >> > > > improvements
> >> > > > >>> to
> >> > > > >>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata [2],
> and
> >> > > exposing
> >> > > > table
> >> > > > >>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch
> >> improvement
> >> > > will help
> >> > > > >>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables will go
> a
> >> > long
> >> > > way to
> >> > > > >>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks
> virtual
> >> > > tables at
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > >>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing table
> >> > > statistics was a
> >> > > > >>> big
> >> > > > >>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help to
> >> > operators.
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
> >> > > > >>>> [2]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
> >> > > > >>>> [3]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <
> >> > > zznate.m@gmail.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>> Hi Sumanth,
> >> > > > >>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this
> >> together.
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>> Cheers,
> >> > > > >>>>> -Nate
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >> > > > >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting release
> types
> >> > and
> >> > > exit
> >> > > > >>>>> criteria
> >> > > > >>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate
> >> on.
> >> > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
> >> > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > >>>>>> Sumanth
> >> > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> >> > > djoshi@apache.org>
> >> > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>> Sankalp,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for testing.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release types
> and
> >> the
> >> > > exit
> >> > > > >>>>> criteria
> >> > > > >>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab
> at
> >> > > this or
> >> > > > >>>> start
> >> > > > >>>>> a
> >> > > > >>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>> Dinesh
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
> >> > > > >>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> >> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is expected
> >> from
> >> > > an
> >> > > > >>>>> alpha,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
> >> > > > >>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is
> >> this
> >> > for
> >> > > > >>> alpha,
> >> > > > >>>>>> beta,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>> Sankalp
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
> >> > > > >>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
> >> > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last
> >> sept(?)
> >> > to
> >> > > > >>> freeze
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe its
> really
> >> > > time to
> >> > > > >>> hit
> >> > > > >>>>> it!
> >> > > > >>>>>>> :-)
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be
> >> > changed
> >> > > is
> >> > > > >>>> still
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at all.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the website
> >> will
> >> > > > >>> definitely
> >> > > > >>>>>> help.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> +1
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <
> >> > > > >>> djoshi@apache.org
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler <
> >> > > > >>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a
> >> very
> >> > > long
> >> > > > >>> time.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's
> 4.0
> >> > > going to
> >> > > > >>>>>> release?"
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he suggested
> >> > > possibly Q4
> >> > > > >>>> 2019.
> >> > > > >>>>>>> This
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being
> close
> >> by
> >> > > > >>> ApacheCon
> >> > > > >>>>> Las
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Vegas
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0
> >> alpha/beta/rc
> >> > > ready
> >> > > > >>> to
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that time,
> we'll
> >> > have
> >> > > been
> >> > > > >>>>> frozen
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> for 1
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release when
> >> it's
> >> > > ready,
> >> > > > >>>> but I
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> think Q4
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD" on the
> >> > > downloads
> >> > > > >>> page
> >> > > > >>>>> to
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> "Est.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the
> estimate,
> >> > but I
> >> > > > >>> think
> >> > > > >>>>> it's
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> time to
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with ApacheCon
> >> nicely
> >> > > for a
> >> > > > >>>>> preview
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> release.
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the
> download
> >> > > page?
> >> > > > >>> Have
> >> > > > >>>>> some
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>> other
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > > >>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > > >>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > > >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > > dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> > dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> > > dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > > >>>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> alex p
> >>
> >
>
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by Sumanth Pasupuleti <su...@gmail.com>.
One more call for any additional comments/ feedback on the release
lifecycle document
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
Thanks,
Sumanth
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:01 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> Submitted patch to add release lifecycle information to the website
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15249
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:57 AM Oleksandr Petrov <
> oleksandr.petrov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe a bit off-topic:
>>
>> Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take care of beta protocol
>> [1], include released driver versions [2] and remove compact storage
>> remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd argue we should do it
>> sooner
>> rather than later.
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14973
>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951
>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all the incremental
>> > feedback I have thus far.
>> >
>> > Looking for any additional feedback folks may have.
>> >
>> >
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a round of
>> comments
>> > as
>> > > well.
>> > >
>> > > Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many of the items
>> under
>> > > "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the release of an
>> alpha,
>> > > especially those related to correctness/safety, scope lock, feature
>> > > completeness, deprecation, and backwards compatibility. Establishing a
>> > > higher standard for official project releases (even at the alpha and
>> beta
>> > > stage) will help us really polish the final build together.
>> > >
>> > > Ideally, I feel that contributors should have completed extensive
>> > > testing/validation to ensure that no critical or severe bugs exist
>> prior
>> > to
>> > > the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency violations,
>> > incorrect
>> > > responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line to this effect.
>> > >
>> > > Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will help us focus the
>> > > final stages of the release on gathering feedback from users +
>> developers
>> > > to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with less
>> commonly-used
>> > > client libraries, testing new features, evaluating performance and
>> > > stability under their workloads, etc.
>> > >
>> > > – Scott
>> > >
>> > > On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <
>> > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life cycle
>> > > document.
>> > > I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any additional
>> > > feedback
>> > > folks may have.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Sumanth
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <
>> scott@paradoxica.net
>> > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Echoing Jon’s point here –
>> > > >
>> > > > JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0 as a
>> > > production
>> > > > ready
>> > > > database for business critical cases”
>> > > >
>> > > > I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and
>> > > achievable,
>> > > > and one I’m legitimately excited about.
>> > > >
>> > > > Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in Confluence, I owe
>> > > another
>> > > > pass through. There has been a lot of progress here, but I’ve
>> let
>> > > perfect
>> > > > be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll complete
>> that
>> > > pass
>> > > > later this week.
>> > > >
>> > > > Cheers,
>> > > >
>> > > > — Scott
>> > > >
>> > > > > On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <djoshi@apache.org
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan.
>> Jira
>> > to
>> > > > track progress.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Dinesh
>> > > > >
>> > > > >>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
>> > > jmckenzie@apache.org>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is
>> cut.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a
>> great
>> > > look
>> > > > for
>> > > > >> the project.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've
>> > > backchanneled
>> > > > >> with) believe this to be true as well, the referenced wiki
>> > > page[1] and
>> > > > >> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date reflection of the
>> > > testing
>> > > > >> efforts going on. Is there another place this information is
>> > > stored /
>> > > > >> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all
>> coordinated?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> [1]
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
>> > > > >> [2]
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <
>> > > kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
>> > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>> Hi Jon,
>> > > > >>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with
>> 3.0
>> > > minor
>> > > > >>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till
>> > .10
>> > > is
>> > > > cut.
>> > > > >>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it
>> will
>> > > take as
>> > > > long
>> > > > >>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Thanks,
>> > > > >>> Sankalp
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <
>> jon@jonhaddad.com
>> > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case is
>> we
>> > > can
>> > > > >>> announce
>> > > > >>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do
>> or
>> > > die"
>> > > > date,
>> > > > >>> and
>> > > > >>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make promises.
>> > > Sticking with
>> > > > >>> "when
>> > > > >>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target,
>> and
>> > > this is
>> > > > imo
>> > > > >>> a
>> > > > >>>> good one.
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We could cut
>> > our
>> > > first
>> > > > >>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August and
>> release
>> > in
>> > > Sept.
>> > > > >>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
>> > > > >>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty good spot.
>> > > We've
>> > > > >>> developed
>> > > > >>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to spin up
>> dev
>> > > clusters
>> > > > in
>> > > > >>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written about this a
>> > few
>> > > times
>> > > > in
>> > > > >>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up that
>> will
>> > > help show
>> > > > >>> this
>> > > > >>>> in more details.
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> There's some other quality of life things we should try to
>> > > hammer out
>> > > > >>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings would be
>> nice,
>> > > for
>> > > > >>>> example. Improving documentation (the data modeling
>> section
>> > in
>> > > > >>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1], and some
>> > > > improvements
>> > > > >>> to
>> > > > >>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata [2], and
>> > > exposing
>> > > > table
>> > > > >>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch
>> improvement
>> > > will help
>> > > > >>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables will go a
>> > long
>> > > way to
>> > > > >>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks virtual
>> > > tables at
>> > > > the
>> > > > >>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing table
>> > > statistics was a
>> > > > >>> big
>> > > > >>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help to
>> > operators.
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
>> > > > >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
>> > > > >>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <
>> > > zznate.m@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> Hi Sumanth,
>> > > > >>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this
>> together.
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> Cheers,
>> > > > >>>>> -Nate
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
>> > > > >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting release types
>> > and
>> > > exit
>> > > > >>>>> criteria
>> > > > >>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate
>> on.
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > >>>>>> Sumanth
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <
>> > > djoshi@apache.org>
>> > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> Sankalp,
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for testing.
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release types and
>> the
>> > > exit
>> > > > >>>>> criteria
>> > > > >>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab at
>> > > this or
>> > > > >>>> start
>> > > > >>>>> a
>> > > > >>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> Dinesh
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
>> > > > >>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
>> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> Hi,
>> > > > >>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is expected
>> from
>> > > an
>> > > > >>>>> alpha,
>> > > > >>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
>> > > > >>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is
>> this
>> > for
>> > > > >>> alpha,
>> > > > >>>>>> beta,
>> > > > >>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > >>>>>>>> Sankalp
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
>> > > > >>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last
>> sept(?)
>> > to
>> > > > >>> freeze
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe its really
>> > > time to
>> > > > >>> hit
>> > > > >>>>> it!
>> > > > >>>>>>> :-)
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be
>> > changed
>> > > is
>> > > > >>>> still
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at all.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the website
>> will
>> > > > >>> definitely
>> > > > >>>>>> help.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> +1
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <
>> > > > >>> djoshi@apache.org
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler <
>> > > > >>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a
>> very
>> > > long
>> > > > >>> time.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's 4.0
>> > > going to
>> > > > >>>>>> release?"
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he suggested
>> > > possibly Q4
>> > > > >>>> 2019.
>> > > > >>>>>>> This
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being close
>> by
>> > > > >>> ApacheCon
>> > > > >>>>> Las
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Vegas
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0
>> alpha/beta/rc
>> > > ready
>> > > > >>> to
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that time, we'll
>> > have
>> > > been
>> > > > >>>>> frozen
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> for 1
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release when
>> it's
>> > > ready,
>> > > > >>>> but I
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> think Q4
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD" on the
>> > > downloads
>> > > > >>> page
>> > > > >>>>> to
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> "Est.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the estimate,
>> > but I
>> > > > >>> think
>> > > > >>>>> it's
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> time to
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with ApacheCon
>> nicely
>> > > for a
>> > > > >>>>> preview
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> release.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the download
>> > > page?
>> > > > >>> Have
>> > > > >>>>> some
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> other
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > > >>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > > >>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > > >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> alex p
>>
>
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by Sumanth Pasupuleti <su...@gmail.com>.
Submitted patch to add release lifecycle information to the website
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15249
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:57 AM Oleksandr Petrov <ol...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Maybe a bit off-topic:
>
> Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take care of beta protocol
> [1], include released driver versions [2] and remove compact storage
> remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd argue we should do it sooner
> rather than later.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14973
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all the incremental
> > feedback I have thus far.
> >
> > Looking for any additional feedback folks may have.
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a round of comments
> > as
> > > well.
> > >
> > > Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many of the items
> under
> > > "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the release of an alpha,
> > > especially those related to correctness/safety, scope lock, feature
> > > completeness, deprecation, and backwards compatibility. Establishing a
> > > higher standard for official project releases (even at the alpha and
> beta
> > > stage) will help us really polish the final build together.
> > >
> > > Ideally, I feel that contributors should have completed extensive
> > > testing/validation to ensure that no critical or severe bugs exist
> prior
> > to
> > > the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency violations,
> > incorrect
> > > responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line to this effect.
> > >
> > > Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will help us focus the
> > > final stages of the release on gathering feedback from users +
> developers
> > > to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with less
> commonly-used
> > > client libraries, testing new features, evaluating performance and
> > > stability under their workloads, etc.
> > >
> > > – Scott
> > >
> > > On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <
> > > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life cycle
> > > document.
> > > I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any additional
> > > feedback
> > > folks may have.
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Sumanth
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <
> scott@paradoxica.net
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Echoing Jon’s point here –
> > > >
> > > > JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0 as a
> > > production
> > > > ready
> > > > database for business critical cases”
> > > >
> > > > I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and
> > > achievable,
> > > > and one I’m legitimately excited about.
> > > >
> > > > Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in Confluence, I owe
> > > another
> > > > pass through. There has been a lot of progress here, but I’ve let
> > > perfect
> > > > be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll complete
> that
> > > pass
> > > > later this week.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > — Scott
> > > >
> > > > > On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan.
> Jira
> > to
> > > > track progress.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dinesh
> > > > >
> > > > >>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
> > > jmckenzie@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is
> cut.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a
> great
> > > look
> > > > for
> > > > >> the project.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've
> > > backchanneled
> > > > >> with) believe this to be true as well, the referenced wiki
> > > page[1] and
> > > > >> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date reflection of the
> > > testing
> > > > >> efforts going on. Is there another place this information is
> > > stored /
> > > > >> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all coordinated?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > > > >> [2]
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <
> > > kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hi Jon,
> > > > >>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with 3.0
> > > minor
> > > > >>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till
> > .10
> > > is
> > > > cut.
> > > > >>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it will
> > > take as
> > > > long
> > > > >>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> Sankalp
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <
> jon@jonhaddad.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case is
> we
> > > can
> > > > >>> announce
> > > > >>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do or
> > > die"
> > > > date,
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make promises.
> > > Sticking with
> > > > >>> "when
> > > > >>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target, and
> > > this is
> > > > imo
> > > > >>> a
> > > > >>>> good one.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We could cut
> > our
> > > first
> > > > >>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August and release
> > in
> > > Sept.
> > > > >>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> > > > >>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty good spot.
> > > We've
> > > > >>> developed
> > > > >>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to spin up dev
> > > clusters
> > > > in
> > > > >>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written about this a
> > few
> > > times
> > > > in
> > > > >>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up that will
> > > help show
> > > > >>> this
> > > > >>>> in more details.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> There's some other quality of life things we should try to
> > > hammer out
> > > > >>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings would be
> nice,
> > > for
> > > > >>>> example. Improving documentation (the data modeling section
> > in
> > > > >>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1], and some
> > > > improvements
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata [2], and
> > > exposing
> > > > table
> > > > >>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch improvement
> > > will help
> > > > >>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables will go a
> > long
> > > way to
> > > > >>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks virtual
> > > tables at
> > > > the
> > > > >>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing table
> > > statistics was a
> > > > >>> big
> > > > >>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help to
> > operators.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
> > > > >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
> > > > >>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <
> > > zznate.m@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Hi Sumanth,
> > > > >>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this together.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Cheers,
> > > > >>>>> -Nate
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > > >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting release types
> > and
> > > exit
> > > > >>>>> criteria
> > > > >>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate on.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>> Sumanth
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> > > djoshi@apache.org>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Sankalp,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for testing.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release types and
> the
> > > exit
> > > > >>>>> criteria
> > > > >>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab at
> > > this or
> > > > >>>> start
> > > > >>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Dinesh
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
> > > > >>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > >>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is expected
> from
> > > an
> > > > >>>>> alpha,
> > > > >>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
> > > > >>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is this
> > for
> > > > >>> alpha,
> > > > >>>>>> beta,
> > > > >>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
> > > > >>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last
> sept(?)
> > to
> > > > >>> freeze
> > > > >>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe its really
> > > time to
> > > > >>> hit
> > > > >>>>> it!
> > > > >>>>>>> :-)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be
> > changed
> > > is
> > > > >>>> still
> > > > >>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at all.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > > >>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the website will
> > > > >>> definitely
> > > > >>>>>> help.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> +1
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <
> > > > >>> djoshi@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler <
> > > > >>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a very
> > > long
> > > > >>> time.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's 4.0
> > > going to
> > > > >>>>>> release?"
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he suggested
> > > possibly Q4
> > > > >>>> 2019.
> > > > >>>>>>> This
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being close
> by
> > > > >>> ApacheCon
> > > > >>>>> Las
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Vegas
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0
> alpha/beta/rc
> > > ready
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that time, we'll
> > have
> > > been
> > > > >>>>> frozen
> > > > >>>>>>>>> for 1
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release when it's
> > > ready,
> > > > >>>> but I
> > > > >>>>>>>>> think Q4
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD" on the
> > > downloads
> > > > >>> page
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> "Est.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the estimate,
> > but I
> > > > >>> think
> > > > >>>>> it's
> > > > >>>>>>>>> time to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with ApacheCon
> nicely
> > > for a
> > > > >>>>> preview
> > > > >>>>>>>>> release.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the download
> > > page?
> > > > >>> Have
> > > > >>>>> some
> > > > >>>>>>>>> other
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > >>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > >>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> alex p
>
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by Oleksandr Petrov <ol...@gmail.com>.
Maybe a bit off-topic:
Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take care of beta protocol
[1], include released driver versions [2] and remove compact storage
remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd argue we should do it sooner
rather than later.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14973
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all the incremental
> feedback I have thus far.
>
> Looking for any additional feedback folks may have.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a round of comments
> as
> > well.
> >
> > Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many of the items under
> > "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the release of an alpha,
> > especially those related to correctness/safety, scope lock, feature
> > completeness, deprecation, and backwards compatibility. Establishing a
> > higher standard for official project releases (even at the alpha and beta
> > stage) will help us really polish the final build together.
> >
> > Ideally, I feel that contributors should have completed extensive
> > testing/validation to ensure that no critical or severe bugs exist prior
> to
> > the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency violations,
> incorrect
> > responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line to this effect.
> >
> > Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will help us focus the
> > final stages of the release on gathering feedback from users + developers
> > to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with less commonly-used
> > client libraries, testing new features, evaluating performance and
> > stability under their workloads, etc.
> >
> > – Scott
> >
> > On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <
> > sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life cycle
> > document.
> > I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any additional
> > feedback
> > folks may have.
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sumanth
> >
> > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <scott@paradoxica.net
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Echoing Jon’s point here –
> > >
> > > JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0 as a
> > production
> > > ready
> > > database for business critical cases”
> > >
> > > I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and
> > achievable,
> > > and one I’m legitimately excited about.
> > >
> > > Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in Confluence, I owe
> > another
> > > pass through. There has been a lot of progress here, but I’ve let
> > perfect
> > > be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll complete that
> > pass
> > > later this week.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > — Scott
> > >
> > > > On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan. Jira
> to
> > > track progress.
> > > >
> > > > Dinesh
> > > >
> > > >>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
> > jmckenzie@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is cut.
> > > >>
> > > >> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a great
> > look
> > > for
> > > >> the project.
> > > >>
> > > >> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> > > >>
> > > >> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've
> > backchanneled
> > > >> with) believe this to be true as well, the referenced wiki
> > page[1] and
> > > >> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date reflection of the
> > testing
> > > >> efforts going on. Is there another place this information is
> > stored /
> > > >> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all coordinated?
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > > >> [2]
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <
> > kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi Jon,
> > > >>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with 3.0
> > minor
> > > >>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till
> .10
> > is
> > > cut.
> > > >>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it will
> > take as
> > > long
> > > >>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Sankalp
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <jon@jonhaddad.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case is we
> > can
> > > >>> announce
> > > >>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do or
> > die"
> > > date,
> > > >>> and
> > > >>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make promises.
> > Sticking with
> > > >>> "when
> > > >>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target, and
> > this is
> > > imo
> > > >>> a
> > > >>>> good one.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We could cut
> our
> > first
> > > >>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August and release
> in
> > Sept.
> > > >>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> > > >>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty good spot.
> > We've
> > > >>> developed
> > > >>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to spin up dev
> > clusters
> > > in
> > > >>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written about this a
> few
> > times
> > > in
> > > >>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up that will
> > help show
> > > >>> this
> > > >>>> in more details.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> There's some other quality of life things we should try to
> > hammer out
> > > >>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings would be nice,
> > for
> > > >>>> example. Improving documentation (the data modeling section
> in
> > > >>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1], and some
> > > improvements
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata [2], and
> > exposing
> > > table
> > > >>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch improvement
> > will help
> > > >>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables will go a
> long
> > way to
> > > >>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks virtual
> > tables at
> > > the
> > > >>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing table
> > statistics was a
> > > >>> big
> > > >>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help to
> operators.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
> > > >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
> > > >>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <
> > zznate.m@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Hi Sumanth,
> > > >>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this together.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Cheers,
> > > >>>>> -Nate
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting release types
> and
> > exit
> > > >>>>> criteria
> > > >>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate on.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>> Sumanth
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> > djoshi@apache.org>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Sankalp,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for testing.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release types and the
> > exit
> > > >>>>> criteria
> > > >>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab at
> > this or
> > > >>>> start
> > > >>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Dinesh
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
> > > >>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is expected from
> > an
> > > >>>>> alpha,
> > > >>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
> > > >>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is this
> for
> > > >>> alpha,
> > > >>>>>> beta,
> > > >>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
> > > >>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last sept(?)
> to
> > > >>> freeze
> > > >>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe its really
> > time to
> > > >>> hit
> > > >>>>> it!
> > > >>>>>>> :-)
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> > > >>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be
> changed
> > is
> > > >>>> still
> > > >>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at all.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > > >>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the website will
> > > >>> definitely
> > > >>>>>> help.
> > > >>>>>>>>> +1
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <
> > > >>> djoshi@apache.org
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler <
> > > >>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a very
> > long
> > > >>> time.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's 4.0
> > going to
> > > >>>>>> release?"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he suggested
> > possibly Q4
> > > >>>> 2019.
> > > >>>>>>> This
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being close by
> > > >>> ApacheCon
> > > >>>>> Las
> > > >>>>>>>>> Vegas
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0 alpha/beta/rc
> > ready
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that time, we'll
> have
> > been
> > > >>>>> frozen
> > > >>>>>>>>> for 1
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release when it's
> > ready,
> > > >>>> but I
> > > >>>>>>>>> think Q4
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD" on the
> > downloads
> > > >>> page
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>> "Est.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the estimate,
> but I
> > > >>> think
> > > >>>>> it's
> > > >>>>>>>>> time to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with ApacheCon nicely
> > for a
> > > >>>>> preview
> > > >>>>>>>>> release.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the download
> > page?
> > > >>> Have
> > > >>>>> some
> > > >>>>>>>>> other
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > >>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> >
>
--
alex p
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by Sumanth Pasupuleti <su...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all the incremental
feedback I have thus far.
Looking for any additional feedback folks may have.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net> wrote:
> Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a round of comments as
> well.
>
> Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many of the items under
> "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the release of an alpha,
> especially those related to correctness/safety, scope lock, feature
> completeness, deprecation, and backwards compatibility. Establishing a
> higher standard for official project releases (even at the alpha and beta
> stage) will help us really polish the final build together.
>
> Ideally, I feel that contributors should have completed extensive
> testing/validation to ensure that no critical or severe bugs exist prior to
> the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency violations, incorrect
> responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line to this effect.
>
> Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will help us focus the
> final stages of the release on gathering feedback from users + developers
> to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with less commonly-used
> client libraries, testing new features, evaluating performance and
> stability under their workloads, etc.
>
> – Scott
>
> On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <
> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life cycle
> document.
> I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any additional
> feedback
> folks may have.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
>
> Thanks,
> Sumanth
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Echoing Jon’s point here –
> >
> > JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0 as a
> production
> > ready
> > database for business critical cases”
> >
> > I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and
> achievable,
> > and one I’m legitimately excited about.
> >
> > Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in Confluence, I owe
> another
> > pass through. There has been a lot of progress here, but I’ve let
> perfect
> > be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll complete that
> pass
> > later this week.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > — Scott
> >
> > > On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan. Jira to
> > track progress.
> > >
> > > Dinesh
> > >
> > >>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <
> jmckenzie@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is cut.
> > >>
> > >> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a great
> look
> > for
> > >> the project.
> > >>
> > >> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> > >>
> > >> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've
> backchanneled
> > >> with) believe this to be true as well, the referenced wiki
> page[1] and
> > >> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date reflection of the
> testing
> > >> efforts going on. Is there another place this information is
> stored /
> > >> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all coordinated?
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > >> [2]
> > >>
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <
> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi Jon,
> > >>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with 3.0
> minor
> > >>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10
> is
> > cut.
> > >>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it will
> take as
> > long
> > >>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Sankalp
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case is we
> can
> > >>> announce
> > >>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do or
> die"
> > date,
> > >>> and
> > >>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make promises.
> Sticking with
> > >>> "when
> > >>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target, and
> this is
> > imo
> > >>> a
> > >>>> good one.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We could cut our
> first
> > >>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August and release in
> Sept.
> > >>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> > >>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty good spot.
> We've
> > >>> developed
> > >>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to spin up dev
> clusters
> > in
> > >>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written about this a few
> times
> > in
> > >>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up that will
> help show
> > >>> this
> > >>>> in more details.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> There's some other quality of life things we should try to
> hammer out
> > >>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings would be nice,
> for
> > >>>> example. Improving documentation (the data modeling section in
> > >>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1], and some
> > improvements
> > >>> to
> > >>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata [2], and
> exposing
> > table
> > >>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch improvement
> will help
> > >>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables will go a long
> way to
> > >>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks virtual
> tables at
> > the
> > >>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing table
> statistics was a
> > >>> big
> > >>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help to operators.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
> > >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
> > >>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <
> zznate.m@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Sumanth,
> > >>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this together.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>> -Nate
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting release types and
> exit
> > >>>>> criteria
> > >>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate on.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>> Sumanth
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <
> djoshi@apache.org>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Sankalp,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for testing.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release types and the
> exit
> > >>>>> criteria
> > >>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab at
> this or
> > >>>> start
> > >>>>> a
> > >>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Dinesh
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
> > >>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is expected from
> an
> > >>>>> alpha,
> > >>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
> > >>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is this for
> > >>> alpha,
> > >>>>>> beta,
> > >>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>> Sankalp
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
> > >>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last sept(?) to
> > >>> freeze
> > >>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe its really
> time to
> > >>> hit
> > >>>>> it!
> > >>>>>>> :-)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> > >>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be changed
> is
> > >>>> still
> > >>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at all.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> > >>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the website will
> > >>> definitely
> > >>>>>> help.
> > >>>>>>>>> +1
> > >>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <
> > >>> djoshi@apache.org
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler <
> > >>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a very
> long
> > >>> time.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's 4.0
> going to
> > >>>>>> release?"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he suggested
> possibly Q4
> > >>>> 2019.
> > >>>>>>> This
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being close by
> > >>> ApacheCon
> > >>>>> Las
> > >>>>>>>>> Vegas
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0 alpha/beta/rc
> ready
> > >>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that time, we'll have
> been
> > >>>>> frozen
> > >>>>>>>>> for 1
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release when it's
> ready,
> > >>>> but I
> > >>>>>>>>> think Q4
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD" on the
> downloads
> > >>> page
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>> "Est.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the estimate, but I
> > >>> think
> > >>>>> it's
> > >>>>>>>>> time to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with ApacheCon nicely
> for a
> > >>>>> preview
> > >>>>>>>>> release.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the download
> page?
> > >>> Have
> > >>>>> some
> > >>>>>>>>> other
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > >>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>
Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?
Posted by Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net>.
Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a round of comments as well.
Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many of the items under "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the release of an alpha, especially those related to correctness/safety, scope lock, feature completeness, deprecation, and backwards compatibility. Establishing a higher standard for official project releases (even at the alpha and beta stage) will help us really polish the final build together.
Ideally, I feel that contributors should have completed extensive testing/validation to ensure that no critical or severe bugs exist prior to the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency violations, incorrect responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line to this effect.
Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will help us focus the final stages of the release on gathering feedback from users + developers to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with less commonly-used client libraries, testing new features, evaluating performance and stability under their workloads, etc.
– Scott
On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" <su...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life cycle document.
I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any additional feedback
folks may have.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit#
Thanks,
Sumanth
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net> wrote:
> Echoing Jon’s point here –
>
> JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0 as a production
> ready
> database for business critical cases”
>
> I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and achievable,
> and one I’m legitimately excited about.
>
> Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in Confluence, I owe another
> pass through. There has been a lot of progress here, but I’ve let perfect
> be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll complete that pass
> later this week.
>
> Cheers,
>
> — Scott
>
> > On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan. Jira to
> track progress.
> >
> > Dinesh
> >
> >>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is cut.
> >>
> >> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a great look
> for
> >> the project.
> >>
> >> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> >>
> >> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've backchanneled
> >> with) believe this to be true as well, the referenced wiki page[1] and
> >> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date reflection of the testing
> >> efforts going on. Is there another place this information is stored /
> >> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all coordinated?
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> >> [2]
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli <ko...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Jon,
> >>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with 3.0 minor
> >>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is
> cut.
> >>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it will take as
> long
> >>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Sankalp
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad <jo...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case is we can
> >>> announce
> >>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do or die"
> date,
> >>> and
> >>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make promises. Sticking with
> >>> "when
> >>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target, and this is
> imo
> >>> a
> >>>> good one.
> >>>>
> >>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We could cut our first
> >>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August and release in Sept.
> >>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already.
> >>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty good spot. We've
> >>> developed
> >>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to spin up dev clusters
> in
> >>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written about this a few times
> in
> >>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up that will help show
> >>> this
> >>>> in more details.
> >>>>
> >>>> There's some other quality of life things we should try to hammer out
> >>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings would be nice, for
> >>>> example. Improving documentation (the data modeling section in
> >>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1], and some
> improvements
> >>> to
> >>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata [2], and exposing
> table
> >>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch improvement will help
> >>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables will go a long way to
> >>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks virtual tables at
> the
> >>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing table statistics was a
> >>> big
> >>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help to operators.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459
> >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630
> >>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall <zz...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Sumanth,
> >>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this together.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> -Nate
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti.is@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting release types and exit
> >>>>> criteria
> >>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate on.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Sumanth
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi <dj...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sankalp,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for testing.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release types and the exit
> >>>>> criteria
> >>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab at this or
> >>>> start
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>> thread to discuss it?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dinesh
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli <
> >>>> kohlisankalp@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is expected from an
> >>>>> alpha,
> >>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release?
> >>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is this for
> >>> alpha,
> >>>>>> beta,
> >>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Sankalp
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind
> >>>> <attilaw@swf.technology
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last sept(?) to
> >>> freeze
> >>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe its really time to
> >>> hit
> >>>>> it!
> >>>>>>> :-)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Attila Wind
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw
> >>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be changed is
> >>>> still
> >>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at all.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti <
> >>>>>>>>> spasupuleti@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the website will
> >>> definitely
> >>>>>> help.
> >>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi <
> >>> djoshi@apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler <
> >>>>>>> michael@pbandjelly.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a very long
> >>> time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's 4.0 going to
> >>>>>> release?"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he suggested possibly Q4
> >>>> 2019.
> >>>>>>> This
> >>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being close by
> >>> ApacheCon
> >>>>> Las
> >>>>>>>>> Vegas
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0 alpha/beta/rc ready
> >>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that time, we'll have been
> >>>>> frozen
> >>>>>>>>> for 1
> >>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release when it's ready,
> >>>> but I
> >>>>>>>>> think Q4
> >>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD" on the downloads
> >>> page
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> "Est.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the estimate, but I
> >>> think
> >>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>>> time to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with ApacheCon nicely for a
> >>>>> preview
> >>>>>>>>> release.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the download page?
> >>> Have
> >>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >>> dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> >>> dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org