I believe we wouldn’t knowingly ship a release with [CASSANDRA-16619 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16619 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16619>> Loss of commit log data possible after sstable ingest] in it, so I’d say at least that one needs to be fixed, even if it isn’t a regression.
Delaying the rest I don’t mind. > On 21 Apr 2021, at 16:52, Benjamin Lerer <ble...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> it would probably help to send the link with the tickets being moved away >> from GA so people can take a look more easily? >> > > Good point Paulo. The tickets I moved to 4.0.X are the following. > > CASSANDRA-16547 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16547> > Prioritisation for sized-tier and TW compactions is based on outdated > estimation > CASSANDRA-16199 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16199> > cassandra.logdir undefined when CASSANDRA_LOG_DIR > CASSANDRA-16619 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16619> > Loss of commit log data possible after sstable ingest > CASSANDRA-16592 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16592> The > token function in where clause return incorrect data when using token equal > condition and Specified a non-exist token value > > Le mar. 20 avr. 2021 à 19:56, Paulo Motta <pauloricard...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > >> +1, but it would probably help to send the link with the tickets being >> moved away from GA so people can take a look more easily? >> >> Em ter., 20 de abr. de 2021 às 13:24, Benjamin Lerer <ble...@apache.org> >> escreveu: >> >>> Hi everybody, >>> >>> I had a look at the 4.0 GA tickets remaining and it looks like several >>> tickets are not 4.0 specific. They are simply bugs that have been >>> discovered recently (they exist in older releases). >>> Unless the problem has been introduced in 4.0 or is a critical issue, it >>> should probably not be included in 4.0 GA scope. >>> >>> I will move those tickets out of the 4.0 GA release and mark them for >>> 4.0.XFeel >>> free to raise your voice if you believe that an issue should be part of >> the >>> 4.0 GA scope for some specific reasons. >>> >>
