Re: Idea: Marking required scope for 4.0 GA vs. optional

[Jake Luciani <ja...@gmail.com>]

If the performance issue is a regression compared to 3.11 that makes total
sense.
And in the case of ZStd since that's new if its unusable without the
"improvement" then it also makes sense.

I think in both cases though it makes sense to classify these as
performance regression bugs.
I'll take a deeper look at the Improvement tickets, perhaps they all fall
into this category.

Jake





On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 6:27 PM Joseph Lynch <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 1:27 PM Jake Luciani <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can we agree to move the improvements out to 4.0.x?
>
> Generally I've been asked to put performance issues as improvements,
> e.g. CASSANDRA-15379. To be frank though we can't run ZstdCompressor
> on real clusters without that patch, and therefore I wouldn't feel
> great releasing ZstdCompressor in 4.0 without that patch.
>
> I'm fine to start calling all performance issues "bugs" since at least
> in our deployments and I think in many others performance regressions
> are P0 bugs that cost a lot of $$, or we can just keep calling them
> improvements and just tag them with the ~right target fix version.
> Namely 4.0-alpha if the change impacts any public interface in a non
> backwards compatible way (yaml, properties, cql, jmx etc...), 4.0-beta
> or later if it does not require changes to public interfaces.
>
> -Joey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cassandra.apache.org
>
>

-- 
http://twitter.com/tjake