| If someone tries to upgrade 3.10 to whatever 4.0 ends up being I think they will hit the wrong answer bug. So I would advocate for having the fix brought into 3.10, but it was broken in 3.9 as well.
Seems like we'd just release that as 3.10.1 (instead of 3.11) and just tell people "you can upgrade to 4.0 w/latest version of 3.10". This does violate the "even releases features, odd releases bugfix", so maybe a 3.11 as final 3.X line would help keep that consistent? I'd rather not open the can of worms of back-porting this to 3.9 as well to hold to our claim of "any 3.X can go to 4.0". On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Ariel Weisberg <ar...@weisberg.ws> wrote: > Hi, > > > > The upgrade tests are tricky because they upgrade from an existing > release to a current release. The bug is in 3.9 and won't be fixed until > 3.11 because the test checks out and builds 3.9 right now. 3.10 doesn't > include the commit that fixes the issue so it will fail after 3.10 is > released and the test is updated to check out 3.10. > > > We claim to support upgrade from any 3.x version to 4.0. If someone > tries to upgrade 3.10 to whatever 4.0 ends up being I think they will > hit the wrong answer bug. So I would advocate for having the fix brought > into 3.10, but it was broken in 3.9 as well. > > > Some of the tests fail because trunk complains of unreadable stables and > I suspect that isn't a bug it's just something that is no longer > supported due to thrift removal, but I haven't fixed those yet. Those > are probably issues with trunk or the tests. > > > Others fail for reasons I haven't triaged yet. I'm struggling with my > own issues getting the tests to run locally. > > > Ariel > > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Nate McCall 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/c612cd8d7dbd24888c216ad53f974686b88dd601 >> > >> 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. > >
