I'm fine w/ alpha2 now and beta1 once we resolve 19011. On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:36 PM Benjamin Lerer <b.le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -1 based on the problems raised by Caleb. > > I would be fine with releasing that version as an alpha as Jeremiah > proposed. > > As of this time, I'm also not aware of a user of the project operating a >> build from the 5.0 branch at substantial scale to suss out the operational >> side of what can be expected. If someone is running a build supporting >> non-perf-test traffic derived from the 5.0 branch and has an experience >> report to share it would be great to read. > > > Some people at Datastax are working on such testing. It will take a bit of > time before we get the final results though. > > Le mar. 28 nov. 2023 à 19:27, J. D. Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > >> That said. This is clearly better than and with many fixes from the >> alpha. Would people be more comfortable if this cut was released as another >> alpha and we do beta1 once the known fixes land? >> >> On Nov 28, 2023, at 12:21 PM, J. D. Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> -0 (NB) on this cut. Given the concerns expressed so far in the thread I >> would think we should re-cut beta1 at the end of the week. >> >> On Nov 28, 2023, at 12:06 PM, Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> I'm a +1 on a beta now vs maybe later. Beta doesn't imply perfect >> especially if there are declared known issues. We need people outside of >> this tight group using it and finding issues. I know how this rolls. Very >> few people touch a Alpha release. Beta is when the engine starts and we >> need to get it started asap. Otherwise we are telling ourselves we have the >> perfect testing apparatus and don't need more users testing. I don't think >> that is the case. >> >> Scott, Ekaterina, and I are going to be on stage in 2 weeks talking about >> Cassandra 5 in the keynotes. In that time, our call to action is going to >> be to test the beta. >> >> Patrick >> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 9:41 AM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who has >>>> tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are considered >>>> binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding +1s and no -1's. >>>> >>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> Checked >>> - signing correct >>> - checksums are correct >>> - source artefact builds (JDK 11+17) >>> - binary artefact runs (JDK 11+17) >>> - debian package runs (JDK 11+17) >>> - debian repo runs (JDK 11+17) >>> - redhat* package runs (JDK11+17) >>> - redhat* repo runs (JDK 11+17) >>> >>> >>> With the disclaimer: There's a few known bugs in SAI, e.g. 19011, with >>> fixes to be available soon in 5.0-beta2. >>> >>> >>>
