You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@cassandra.apache.org by Jake Luciani <ja...@apache.org> on 2015/12/08 21:26:02 UTC
[RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released
The Cassandra team is pleased to announce the release of Apache Cassandra
version 3.1. This is the first release from our new Tick-Tock release
process[4].
It contains only bugfixes on the 3.0 release.
Apache Cassandra is a fully distributed database. It is the right choice
when you need scalability and high availability without compromising
performance.
http://cassandra.apache.org/
Downloads of source and binary distributions are listed in our download
section:
http://cassandra.apache.org/download/
This version is a bug fix release[1] on the 3.x series. As always, please
pay
attention to the release notes[2] and Let us know[3] if you were to
encounter
any problem.
Enjoy!
[1]: http://goo.gl/rQJ9yd (CHANGES.txt)
[2]: http://goo.gl/WBrlCs (NEWS.txt)
[3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA
[4]: http://www.planetcassandra.org/blog/cassandra-2-2-3-0-and-beyond/
Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released
Posted by Kai Wang <de...@gmail.com>.
Josh,
Thank you very much for the clarification.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Josh McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Kai,
>
>
>> The most stable version will be 3.1 because it includes the critical
>> fixes in 3.0.1 and some additional bug fixes
>
> 3.0.1 and 3.1 are identical. This is a unique overlap specific to 3.0.1
> and 3.1.
>
> To summarize, the most stable version should be x.Max(2n+1).z.
>
> Going forward, you can expect the following:
> 3.2: new features
> 3.3: stabilization (built on top of 3.2)
> 3.4: new features
> 3.5: stabilization (built on top of 3.4)
>
> And in parallel (for the 3.x major version / transition to tick-tock
> transition period only):
> 3.0.2: bugfixes only
> 3.0.3: bugfixes only
> 3.0.4: bugfixes only
> etc
>
> *Any bugfix that goes into 3.0.X will be in the 3.X line, however not all
> bugfixes in 3.X will be in 3.0.X* (bugfixes for new features introduced
> in 3.2, 3.4, etc will obviously not be back-ported to 3.0.X).
>
> So, for the 3.x line:
>
> - If you absolutely must have the most stable version of C* and don't
> care at all about the new features introduced in even versions of 3.x, you
> want the 3.0.N release.
> - If you want access to the new features introduced in even release
> versions of 3.x (3.2, 3.4, 3.6), you'll want to run the latest odd version
> (3.3, 3.5, 3.7, etc) after the release containing the feature you want
> access to (so, if the feature's introduced in 3.4 and we haven't dropped
> 3.5 yet, obviously you'd need to run 3.4).
>
>
> This is only going to be the case during the transition phase from old
> release cycles to tick-tock. We're targeting changes to CI and quality
> focus going forward to greatly increase the stability of the odd releases
> of major branches (3.1, 3.3, etc) so, for the 4.X releases, our
> recommendation would be to run the highest # odd release for greatest
> stability.
>
> Hope that helps clarify.
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Kai Wang <de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Paulo,
>>
>> Thank you for the examples.
>>
>> So if I go to download page and see 3.0.1, 3.1 and 3.2. The most stable
>> version will be 3.1 because it includes the critical fixes in 3.0.1 and
>> some additional bug fixes while doesn't have any new features introduced in
>> 3.2. In that sense 3.0.1 becomes obsolete as soon as 3.1 comes out.
>>
>> To summarize, the most stable version should be x.Max(2n+1).z.
>>
>> Am I correct?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Paulo Motta <pa...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > Will 3.2 contain the bugfixes that are in 3.0.2 as well?
>>>
>>> If the bugfix affects both 3.2 and 3.0.2, yes. Otherwise it will only go
>>> in the affected version.
>>>
>>> > Is 3.x.y just 3.0.x plus new stuff? Where most of the time y is 0,
>>> unless there's a really serious issue that needs fixing?
>>>
>>> You can't really compare 3.0.y with 3.x(.y) because they're two
>>> different versioning schemes. To make it a bit clearer:
>>>
>>> Old model:
>>> * x.y.z, where:
>>> * x.y represents the "major" version (eg: 2.1, 2.2)
>>> * z represents the "minor" version (eg: 2.1.1, 2.2.2)
>>>
>>> New model:
>>> * a.b(.c), where:
>>> * a represents the "major" version (3, 4, 5)
>>> * b represents the "minor" version (3.1, 3.2, 4.1, etc), where:
>>> * if b is even, it' a tick release, meaning it can contain both
>>> bugfixes and new features.
>>> * if b is odd, it's a tock release, meaning it can only contain
>>> bugfixes.
>>> * c is a "subminor" optional version, which will only happen in
>>> emergency situations, for example, if a critical/blocker bug is discovered
>>> before the next release is out. So we probably won't have a 3.1.1, unless a
>>> critical bug is discovered in 3.1 and needs urgent fix before 3.2.
>>>
>>> The 3.0.x series is an interim stabilization release using the old
>>> versioning scheme, and will only receive bug fixes that affects it.
>>>
>>> 2015-12-09 18:21 GMT-08:00 Maciek Sakrejda <ma...@heroku.com>:
>>>
>>>> I'm still confused, even after reading the blog post twice (and reading
>>>> the linked Intel post). I understand what you are doing conceptually, but
>>>> I'm having a hard time mapping that to actual planned release numbers.
>>>>
>>>> > The 3.0.2 will only contain bugfixes, while 3.2 will introduce new
>>>> features.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released
Posted by Maciek Sakrejda <ma...@heroku.com>.
Thanks, Josh and Paulo--that's much clearer.
Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>.
> There's not going to be a 3.3.x series, there will be one 3.3 release (unless there is a critical bug, as mentioned above).
>
> There are two separate release lines going on:
>
> 3.0.1 -> 3.0.2 -> 3.0.3 -> 3.0.4 -> ... (every release is a bugfix)
>
> 3.1 -> 3.2 -> 3.3 -> 3.4 -> ... (odd numbers are bugfix releases, even numbers may contain new features)
Ooh, okay. This explains everything. I wish this schematic would've been a part of the initial discussion. I'm not entirely convinced this will actually achieve the desired effect, but it's worth a try anyway :-) Thank you, Mr Hobbs!
/Janne
Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released
Posted by Tyler Hobbs <ty...@datastax.com>.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>
wrote:
>
> So there is no reason why you would ever want to run 3.1 then?
>
Probably not.
> Why was it released?
>
For consistency. It's the first release in the new tick-tock release
scheme. Skipping that would have been a bit strange (although I'll agree
it's also strange to have 3.0.1 == 3.1).
> What is the lifecycle of 3.0.x? Will it become obsolete once 3.3 comes
> out?
>
3.0.x will continue until 4.0.
>
>
> - If you want access to the new features introduced in even release
> versions of 3.x (3.2, 3.4, 3.6), you'll want to run the latest odd version
> (3.3, 3.5, 3.7, etc) after the release containing the feature you want
> access to (so, if the feature's introduced in 3.4 and we haven't dropped
> 3.5 yet, obviously you'd need to run 3.4).
>
>
> Are there going to be minor releases of the even releases, i.e. 3.2.1?
>
Not unless we discover critical bugs in 3.2, such as security
vulnerabilities or corruption issues.
> Or will they all be delegated to 3.3.x -series? Or will there be a
> series of identical releases like 3.1 and 3.0.1 with 3.2.1 and 3.3?
>
There's not going to be a 3.3.x series, there will be one 3.3 release
(unless there is a critical bug, as mentioned above).
There are two separate release lines going on:
3.0.1 -> 3.0.2 -> 3.0.3 -> 3.0.4 -> ... (every release is a bugfix)
3.1 -> 3.2 -> 3.3 -> 3.4 -> ... (odd numbers are bugfix releases, even
numbers may contain new features)
>
> This is only going to be the case during the transition phase from old
> release cycles to tick-tock. We're targeting changes to CI and quality
> focus going forward to greatly increase the stability of the odd releases
> of major branches (3.1, 3.3, etc) so, for the 4.X releases, our
> recommendation would be to run the highest # odd release for greatest
> stability.
>
>
> So here you tell to run 3.1, but above you tell to run 3.0.1? Why is
> there a different release scheme specifically for 3.0.x instead of putting
> those fixes to 3.1?
>
We don't know how well the tick-tock release scheme will stabilize yet. As
a safety net, we're doing our traditional release scheme for 3.0.x.
--
Tyler Hobbs
DataStax <http://datastax.com/>
Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <Ja...@ecyrd.com>.
Thanks for this clarification, however...
> So, for the 3.x line:
> If you absolutely must have the most stable version of C* and don't care at all about the new features introduced in even versions of 3.x, you want the 3.0.N release.
So there is no reason why you would ever want to run 3.1 then? Why was it released? What is the lifecycle of 3.0.x? Will it become obsolete once 3.3 comes out?
> If you want access to the new features introduced in even release versions of 3.x (3.2, 3.4, 3.6), you'll want to run the latest odd version (3.3, 3.5, 3.7, etc) after the release containing the feature you want access to (so, if the feature's introduced in 3.4 and we haven't dropped 3.5 yet, obviously you'd need to run 3.4).
Are there going to be minor releases of the even releases, i.e. 3.2.1? Or will they all be delegated to 3.3.x -series? Or will there be a series of identical releases like 3.1 and 3.0.1 with 3.2.1 and 3.3?
> This is only going to be the case during the transition phase from old release cycles to tick-tock. We're targeting changes to CI and quality focus going forward to greatly increase the stability of the odd releases of major branches (3.1, 3.3, etc) so, for the 4.X releases, our recommendation would be to run the highest # odd release for greatest stability.
So here you tell to run 3.1, but above you tell to run 3.0.1? Why is there a different release scheme specifically for 3.0.x instead of putting those fixes to 3.1?
/Janne
Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released
Posted by Josh McKenzie <jm...@apache.org>.
Kai,
> The most stable version will be 3.1 because it includes the critical fixes
> in 3.0.1 and some additional bug fixes
3.0.1 and 3.1 are identical. This is a unique overlap specific to 3.0.1 and
3.1.
To summarize, the most stable version should be x.Max(2n+1).z.
Going forward, you can expect the following:
3.2: new features
3.3: stabilization (built on top of 3.2)
3.4: new features
3.5: stabilization (built on top of 3.4)
And in parallel (for the 3.x major version / transition to tick-tock
transition period only):
3.0.2: bugfixes only
3.0.3: bugfixes only
3.0.4: bugfixes only
etc
*Any bugfix that goes into 3.0.X will be in the 3.X line, however not all
bugfixes in 3.X will be in 3.0.X* (bugfixes for new features introduced in
3.2, 3.4, etc will obviously not be back-ported to 3.0.X).
So, for the 3.x line:
- If you absolutely must have the most stable version of C* and don't
care at all about the new features introduced in even versions of 3.x, you
want the 3.0.N release.
- If you want access to the new features introduced in even release
versions of 3.x (3.2, 3.4, 3.6), you'll want to run the latest odd version
(3.3, 3.5, 3.7, etc) after the release containing the feature you want
access to (so, if the feature's introduced in 3.4 and we haven't dropped
3.5 yet, obviously you'd need to run 3.4).
This is only going to be the case during the transition phase from old
release cycles to tick-tock. We're targeting changes to CI and quality
focus going forward to greatly increase the stability of the odd releases
of major branches (3.1, 3.3, etc) so, for the 4.X releases, our
recommendation would be to run the highest # odd release for greatest
stability.
Hope that helps clarify.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Kai Wang <de...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paulo,
>
> Thank you for the examples.
>
> So if I go to download page and see 3.0.1, 3.1 and 3.2. The most stable
> version will be 3.1 because it includes the critical fixes in 3.0.1 and
> some additional bug fixes while doesn't have any new features introduced in
> 3.2. In that sense 3.0.1 becomes obsolete as soon as 3.1 comes out.
>
> To summarize, the most stable version should be x.Max(2n+1).z.
>
> Am I correct?
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Paulo Motta <pa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > Will 3.2 contain the bugfixes that are in 3.0.2 as well?
>>
>> If the bugfix affects both 3.2 and 3.0.2, yes. Otherwise it will only go
>> in the affected version.
>>
>> > Is 3.x.y just 3.0.x plus new stuff? Where most of the time y is 0,
>> unless there's a really serious issue that needs fixing?
>>
>> You can't really compare 3.0.y with 3.x(.y) because they're two different
>> versioning schemes. To make it a bit clearer:
>>
>> Old model:
>> * x.y.z, where:
>> * x.y represents the "major" version (eg: 2.1, 2.2)
>> * z represents the "minor" version (eg: 2.1.1, 2.2.2)
>>
>> New model:
>> * a.b(.c), where:
>> * a represents the "major" version (3, 4, 5)
>> * b represents the "minor" version (3.1, 3.2, 4.1, etc), where:
>> * if b is even, it' a tick release, meaning it can contain both
>> bugfixes and new features.
>> * if b is odd, it's a tock release, meaning it can only contain
>> bugfixes.
>> * c is a "subminor" optional version, which will only happen in
>> emergency situations, for example, if a critical/blocker bug is discovered
>> before the next release is out. So we probably won't have a 3.1.1, unless a
>> critical bug is discovered in 3.1 and needs urgent fix before 3.2.
>>
>> The 3.0.x series is an interim stabilization release using the old
>> versioning scheme, and will only receive bug fixes that affects it.
>>
>> 2015-12-09 18:21 GMT-08:00 Maciek Sakrejda <ma...@heroku.com>:
>>
>>> I'm still confused, even after reading the blog post twice (and reading
>>> the linked Intel post). I understand what you are doing conceptually, but
>>> I'm having a hard time mapping that to actual planned release numbers.
>>>
>>> > The 3.0.2 will only contain bugfixes, while 3.2 will introduce new
>>> features.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released
Posted by Kai Wang <de...@gmail.com>.
Paulo,
Thank you for the examples.
So if I go to download page and see 3.0.1, 3.1 and 3.2. The most stable
version will be 3.1 because it includes the critical fixes in 3.0.1 and
some additional bug fixes while doesn't have any new features introduced in
3.2. In that sense 3.0.1 becomes obsolete as soon as 3.1 comes out.
To summarize, the most stable version should be x.Max(2n+1).z.
Am I correct?
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Paulo Motta <pa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Will 3.2 contain the bugfixes that are in 3.0.2 as well?
>
> If the bugfix affects both 3.2 and 3.0.2, yes. Otherwise it will only go
> in the affected version.
>
> > Is 3.x.y just 3.0.x plus new stuff? Where most of the time y is 0,
> unless there's a really serious issue that needs fixing?
>
> You can't really compare 3.0.y with 3.x(.y) because they're two different
> versioning schemes. To make it a bit clearer:
>
> Old model:
> * x.y.z, where:
> * x.y represents the "major" version (eg: 2.1, 2.2)
> * z represents the "minor" version (eg: 2.1.1, 2.2.2)
>
> New model:
> * a.b(.c), where:
> * a represents the "major" version (3, 4, 5)
> * b represents the "minor" version (3.1, 3.2, 4.1, etc), where:
> * if b is even, it' a tick release, meaning it can contain both
> bugfixes and new features.
> * if b is odd, it's a tock release, meaning it can only contain
> bugfixes.
> * c is a "subminor" optional version, which will only happen in
> emergency situations, for example, if a critical/blocker bug is discovered
> before the next release is out. So we probably won't have a 3.1.1, unless a
> critical bug is discovered in 3.1 and needs urgent fix before 3.2.
>
> The 3.0.x series is an interim stabilization release using the old
> versioning scheme, and will only receive bug fixes that affects it.
>
> 2015-12-09 18:21 GMT-08:00 Maciek Sakrejda <ma...@heroku.com>:
>
>> I'm still confused, even after reading the blog post twice (and reading
>> the linked Intel post). I understand what you are doing conceptually, but
>> I'm having a hard time mapping that to actual planned release numbers.
>>
>> > The 3.0.2 will only contain bugfixes, while 3.2 will introduce new
>> features.
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released
Posted by Paulo Motta <pa...@gmail.com>.
> Will 3.2 contain the bugfixes that are in 3.0.2 as well?
If the bugfix affects both 3.2 and 3.0.2, yes. Otherwise it will only go in
the affected version.
> Is 3.x.y just 3.0.x plus new stuff? Where most of the time y is 0, unless
there's a really serious issue that needs fixing?
You can't really compare 3.0.y with 3.x(.y) because they're two different
versioning schemes. To make it a bit clearer:
Old model:
* x.y.z, where:
* x.y represents the "major" version (eg: 2.1, 2.2)
* z represents the "minor" version (eg: 2.1.1, 2.2.2)
New model:
* a.b(.c), where:
* a represents the "major" version (3, 4, 5)
* b represents the "minor" version (3.1, 3.2, 4.1, etc), where:
* if b is even, it' a tick release, meaning it can contain both
bugfixes and new features.
* if b is odd, it's a tock release, meaning it can only contain
bugfixes.
* c is a "subminor" optional version, which will only happen in emergency
situations, for example, if a critical/blocker bug is discovered before the
next release is out. So we probably won't have a 3.1.1, unless a critical
bug is discovered in 3.1 and needs urgent fix before 3.2.
The 3.0.x series is an interim stabilization release using the old
versioning scheme, and will only receive bug fixes that affects it.
2015-12-09 18:21 GMT-08:00 Maciek Sakrejda <ma...@heroku.com>:
> I'm still confused, even after reading the blog post twice (and reading
> the linked Intel post). I understand what you are doing conceptually, but
> I'm having a hard time mapping that to actual planned release numbers.
>
> > The 3.0.2 will only contain bugfixes, while 3.2 will introduce new
> features.
>
>
>
Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released
Posted by Maciek Sakrejda <ma...@heroku.com>.
I'm still confused, even after reading the blog post twice (and reading the
linked Intel post). I understand what you are doing conceptually, but I'm
having a hard time mapping that to actual planned release numbers.
> The 3.0.2 will only contain bugfixes, while 3.2 will introduce new
features.
Will 3.2 contain the bugfixes that are in 3.0.2 as well? Is 3.x.y just
3.0.x plus new stuff? Where most of the time y is 0, unless there's a
really serious issue that needs fixing?
Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released
Posted by Tyler Hobbs <ty...@datastax.com>.
This explains the new release plans in detail:
http://www.planetcassandra.org/blog/cassandra-2-2-3-0-and-beyond/
3.0.1 and 3.1 are a special case, because they happen to be identical.
However, 3.0.2 will not be the same as 3.2. The 3.0.2 will only contain
bugfixes, while 3.2 will introduce new features. There will not be a 3.1.1
or 3.2.1 unless a very critical bug is discovered in 3.1 or 3.2.
If you "just want to run the most stable 3.0", stick with 3.0.x for now
(which is 3.0.1). If you want to use bleeding-edge features, try out 3.2
when it's released (but be warned that it may not be as stable).
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Hannu Kröger <hk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I feel the same as well. Would you skip 3.2 when you release another round
> of bug fixes after one round of bug fixes? Or would 3.2 be released after
> 3.3.? :P
>
> BR,
> Hannu
>
> On 09 Dec 2015, at 16:05, Kai Wang <de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Janne,
>
> You are not alone. I am also confused by that "Under normal conditions
> ..." statement. I can really use some examples such as:
> 3.0.0 = ?
> 3.0.1 = ?
> 3.1.0 = ?
> 3.1.1 = ? (this should not happen under normal conditions because the fix
> should be in 3.3.0 - the next bug fix release?)
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Janne Jalkanen <ja...@ecyrd.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I’m sorry, I don’t understand the new release scheme at all. Both of
>> these are bug fixes on 3.0? What’s the actual difference?
>>
>> If I just want to run the most stable 3.0, should I run 3.0.1 or 3.1?
>> Will 3.0 gain new features which will not go into 3.1, because that’s a bug
>> fix release on 3.0? So 3.0.x will contain more features than 3.1, as
>> even-numbered releases will be getting new features? Or is 3.0.1 and 3.1
>> essentially the same thing? Then what’s the role of 3.1? Will there be more
>> than one 3.1? 3.1.1? Or is it 3.3? What’s the content of that? 3.something
>> + patches = 3.what?
>>
>> What does this statement in the referred blog post mean? "Under normal
>> conditions, we will NOT release 3.x.y stability releases for x > 0.” Why
>> are the normal conditions being violated already by releasing 3.1 (since 1
>> > 0)?
>>
>> /Janne, who is completely confused by all this, and suspects he’s the
>> target of some hideous joke.
>>
>> On 8 Dec 2015, at 22:26, Jake Luciani <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The Cassandra team is pleased to announce the release of Apache Cassandra
>> version 3.1. This is the first release from our new Tick-Tock release
>> process[4].
>> It contains only bugfixes on the 3.0 release.
>>
>> Apache Cassandra is a fully distributed database. It is the right choice
>> when you need scalability and high availability without compromising
>> performance.
>>
>> http://cassandra.apache.org/
>>
>> Downloads of source and binary distributions are listed in our download
>> section:
>>
>> http://cassandra.apache.org/download/
>>
>> This version is a bug fix release[1] on the 3.x series. As always, please
>> pay
>> attention to the release notes[2] and Let us know[3] if you were to
>> encounter
>> any problem.
>>
>> Enjoy!
>>
>> [1]: http://goo.gl/rQJ9yd (CHANGES.txt)
>> [2]: http://goo.gl/WBrlCs (NEWS.txt)
>> [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA
>> [4]: http://www.planetcassandra.org/blog/cassandra-2-2-3-0-and-beyond/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Tyler Hobbs
DataStax <http://datastax.com/>
Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released
Posted by Hannu Kröger <hk...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I feel the same as well. Would you skip 3.2 when you release another round of bug fixes after one round of bug fixes? Or would 3.2 be released after 3.3.? :P
BR,
Hannu
> On 09 Dec 2015, at 16:05, Kai Wang <de...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Janne,
>
> You are not alone. I am also confused by that "Under normal conditions ..." statement. I can really use some examples such as:
> 3.0.0 = ?
> 3.0.1 = ?
> 3.1.0 = ?
> 3.1.1 = ? (this should not happen under normal conditions because the fix should be in 3.3.0 - the next bug fix release?)
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Janne Jalkanen <janne.jalkanen@ecyrd.com <ma...@ecyrd.com>> wrote:
>
> I’m sorry, I don’t understand the new release scheme at all. Both of these are bug fixes on 3.0? What’s the actual difference?
>
> If I just want to run the most stable 3.0, should I run 3.0.1 or 3.1? Will 3.0 gain new features which will not go into 3.1, because that’s a bug fix release on 3.0? So 3.0.x will contain more features than 3.1, as even-numbered releases will be getting new features? Or is 3.0.1 and 3.1 essentially the same thing? Then what’s the role of 3.1? Will there be more than one 3.1? 3.1.1? Or is it 3.3? What’s the content of that? 3.something + patches = 3.what?
>
> What does this statement in the referred blog post mean? "Under normal conditions, we will NOT release 3.x.y stability releases for x > 0.” Why are the normal conditions being violated already by releasing 3.1 (since 1 > 0)?
>
> /Janne, who is completely confused by all this, and suspects he’s the target of some hideous joke.
>
>> On 8 Dec 2015, at 22:26, Jake Luciani <jake@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The Cassandra team is pleased to announce the release of Apache Cassandra
>> version 3.1. This is the first release from our new Tick-Tock release process[4].
>> It contains only bugfixes on the 3.0 release.
>>
>> Apache Cassandra is a fully distributed database. It is the right choice
>> when you need scalability and high availability without compromising
>> performance.
>>
>> http://cassandra.apache.org/ <http://cassandra.apache.org/>
>>
>> Downloads of source and binary distributions are listed in our download
>> section:
>>
>> http://cassandra.apache.org/download/ <http://cassandra.apache.org/download/>
>>
>> This version is a bug fix release[1] on the 3.x series. As always, please pay
>> attention to the release notes[2] and Let us know[3] if you were to encounter
>> any problem.
>>
>> Enjoy!
>>
>> [1]: http://goo.gl/rQJ9yd <http://goo.gl/rQJ9yd> (CHANGES.txt)
>> [2]: http://goo.gl/WBrlCs <http://goo.gl/WBrlCs> (NEWS.txt)
>> [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA>
>> [4]: http://www.planetcassandra.org/blog/cassandra-2-2-3-0-and-beyond/ <http://www.planetcassandra.org/blog/cassandra-2-2-3-0-and-beyond/>
>>
>
>
Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released
Posted by Kai Wang <de...@gmail.com>.
Janne,
You are not alone. I am also confused by that "Under normal conditions ..."
statement. I can really use some examples such as:
3.0.0 = ?
3.0.1 = ?
3.1.0 = ?
3.1.1 = ? (this should not happen under normal conditions because the fix
should be in 3.3.0 - the next bug fix release?)
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:05 AM, Janne Jalkanen <ja...@ecyrd.com>
wrote:
>
> I’m sorry, I don’t understand the new release scheme at all. Both of these
> are bug fixes on 3.0? What’s the actual difference?
>
> If I just want to run the most stable 3.0, should I run 3.0.1 or 3.1?
> Will 3.0 gain new features which will not go into 3.1, because that’s a bug
> fix release on 3.0? So 3.0.x will contain more features than 3.1, as
> even-numbered releases will be getting new features? Or is 3.0.1 and 3.1
> essentially the same thing? Then what’s the role of 3.1? Will there be more
> than one 3.1? 3.1.1? Or is it 3.3? What’s the content of that? 3.something
> + patches = 3.what?
>
> What does this statement in the referred blog post mean? "Under normal
> conditions, we will NOT release 3.x.y stability releases for x > 0.” Why
> are the normal conditions being violated already by releasing 3.1 (since 1
> > 0)?
>
> /Janne, who is completely confused by all this, and suspects he’s the
> target of some hideous joke.
>
> On 8 Dec 2015, at 22:26, Jake Luciani <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> The Cassandra team is pleased to announce the release of Apache Cassandra
> version 3.1. This is the first release from our new Tick-Tock release
> process[4].
> It contains only bugfixes on the 3.0 release.
>
> Apache Cassandra is a fully distributed database. It is the right choice
> when you need scalability and high availability without compromising
> performance.
>
> http://cassandra.apache.org/
>
> Downloads of source and binary distributions are listed in our download
> section:
>
> http://cassandra.apache.org/download/
>
> This version is a bug fix release[1] on the 3.x series. As always, please
> pay
> attention to the release notes[2] and Let us know[3] if you were to
> encounter
> any problem.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> [1]: http://goo.gl/rQJ9yd (CHANGES.txt)
> [2]: http://goo.gl/WBrlCs (NEWS.txt)
> [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA
> [4]: http://www.planetcassandra.org/blog/cassandra-2-2-3-0-and-beyond/
>
>
>
Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <ja...@ecyrd.com>.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand the new release scheme at all. Both of these are bug fixes on 3.0? What’s the actual difference?
If I just want to run the most stable 3.0, should I run 3.0.1 or 3.1? Will 3.0 gain new features which will not go into 3.1, because that’s a bug fix release on 3.0? So 3.0.x will contain more features than 3.1, as even-numbered releases will be getting new features? Or is 3.0.1 and 3.1 essentially the same thing? Then what’s the role of 3.1? Will there be more than one 3.1? 3.1.1? Or is it 3.3? What’s the content of that? 3.something + patches = 3.what?
What does this statement in the referred blog post mean? "Under normal conditions, we will NOT release 3.x.y stability releases for x > 0.” Why are the normal conditions being violated already by releasing 3.1 (since 1 > 0)?
/Janne, who is completely confused by all this, and suspects he’s the target of some hideous joke.
> On 8 Dec 2015, at 22:26, Jake Luciani <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> The Cassandra team is pleased to announce the release of Apache Cassandra
> version 3.1. This is the first release from our new Tick-Tock release process[4].
> It contains only bugfixes on the 3.0 release.
>
> Apache Cassandra is a fully distributed database. It is the right choice
> when you need scalability and high availability without compromising
> performance.
>
> http://cassandra.apache.org/ <http://cassandra.apache.org/>
>
> Downloads of source and binary distributions are listed in our download
> section:
>
> http://cassandra.apache.org/download/ <http://cassandra.apache.org/download/>
>
> This version is a bug fix release[1] on the 3.x series. As always, please pay
> attention to the release notes[2] and Let us know[3] if you were to encounter
> any problem.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> [1]: http://goo.gl/rQJ9yd <http://goo.gl/rQJ9yd> (CHANGES.txt)
> [2]: http://goo.gl/WBrlCs <http://goo.gl/WBrlCs> (NEWS.txt)
> [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA>
> [4]: http://www.planetcassandra.org/blog/cassandra-2-2-3-0-and-beyond/ <http://www.planetcassandra.org/blog/cassandra-2-2-3-0-and-beyond/>
>