I assume you meant the query w/out 12617 embedded? https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%203.10%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved
Do we have confidence that all test failures have fixVersion attached correctly? The list of test failures w/out fixVersion is pretty daunting: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20labels%20in%20(test%2C%20test-failure%2C%20dtest%2C%20unittest)%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20fixversion%20%3D%20null%20and%20labels%20!%3D%20windows%20ORDER%20BY%20created%20asc On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I concede it would be fine to do it gradually. Once the pace of issues > > introduced by new development is beaten by the pace at which they are > > addressed I think things will go well. > > So from Michael's JIRA query: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12617? > jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%203. > 10%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved > > Are we good for 3.10 after we get those cleaned up? > > Ariel, you made reference to: > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/commit/c612cd8d7dbd24888c216ad53f9746 > 86b88dd601 > > Do we need to re-open an issue to have this applied to 3.10 and add it > to the above list? > > > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Josh McKenzie wrote: > >> > >> Sankalp's proposal of us progressively tightening up our standards > allows > >> us to get code out the door and regain some lost momentum on the 3.10 > >> release failures and blocking, and gives us time as a community to > adjust > >> our behavior without the burden of an ever-later slipped release hanging > >> over our heads. There's plenty of bugfixes in the 3.X line; the more > time > >> people can have to kick the tires on that code, the more things we can > >> find > >> and the better future releases will be. > > > +1 On gradually moving to this. Dropping releases with huge change > lists has never gone well for us in the past. >
