Re: Roadmap for 4.0

I can commit some resources on my team - especially as we onboard some of our summer apprentices. I have some proprietary stress tools geared for Cassandra read / writes that are a little better and creates a little more realistic data than Cassandra stress. -- Rahul Singh

Re: Repair scheduling tools

Schedule scheme looks good. I believe in process / sidecar can both coexist. As an admin would love to be able to run one or the other or none. Thank you for taking a lead and producing a plan that can actually be executed. -- Rahul Singh rahul.si...@anant.us Anant Corporation On Apr 12,

Re: Proposing an Apache Cassandra Management process

In my opinion this will be a great addition to the Cassandra and will take overall Cassandra project to next level. This will also improve user experience especially for new users. Jaydeep On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:42 PM Dinesh Joshi wrote: > Hey all - > With

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

I think the reason there's such a kerfuffle around a 'close-to-now' freeze date is more of a concern as to when cassandra 5.0 is going to be released. I'm assuming if people thought 5.0 was going to be released in early 2019 no one would have a problem with setting the freeze date of 4.0 to

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

September also works for Instaclustr. On Fri., 13 Apr. 2018, 08:27 Jon Haddad, wrote: > Sept works for me too. I’ll be involved in the validation process before > the cutoff date. > > > > On Apr 12, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Carlos Rolo wrote: > > > > I will

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

The thing is, good intentions are cheap. And they get cheaper the further out in the future the point of action gets. Realistically, the main difference between June and September is we ship three months later. More, if we manage to land large, destabilizing patches in the meantime. I’m very

Re: Repair scheduling tools

Given the feedback here and on the ticket, I've written up a proposal for a repair sidecar tool in the ticket's design document. If there are no major concerns we're going to start working

Re: Repair scheduling tools

> > I personally would rather see improvements to reaper and supporting reaper > so the repair tool improvements aren't tied to Cassandra releases. If we > get to a place where the repair tools are stable then figuring out how to > bundle for the best install makes sense to me. > I view the

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Sept works for me too. I’ll be involved in the validation process before the cutoff date. > On Apr 12, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Carlos Rolo wrote: > > I will commit time to test (not a full validation, but at least go through > operations) regardless of the date. Both seems fine

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

I will commit time to test (not a full validation, but at least go through operations) regardless of the date. Both seems fine to me. Regards, Carlos Juzarte Rolo Cassandra Consultant / Datastax Certified Architect / Cassandra MVP Pythian - Love your data rolo@pythian | Twitter: @cjrolo |

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

The Netflix team prefers September as well. We don't have time before that to do a full certification (e2e and performance testing), but can probably work it into end of Q3 / start of Q4. I personally hope that the extra time gives us as a community a chance to come up with a compelling user

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Hi, +1 to September 1st. I know I will have much better availability then. Ariel On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, at 5:15 PM, Sankalp Kohli wrote: > +1 with Sept 1st as I am seeing willingness for people to test it after it > > > On Apr 12, 2018, at 13:59, Ben Bromhead wrote: > > >

Proposing an Apache Cassandra Management process

Hey all - With the uptick in discussion around Cassandra operability and after discussing potential solutions with various members of the community, we would like to propose the addition of a management process/sub-project into Apache Cassandra. The process would be responsible for common

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

+1 with Sept 1st as I am seeing willingness for people to test it after it > On Apr 12, 2018, at 13:59, Ben Bromhead wrote: > > While I would prefer earlier, if Sept 1 gets better buy-in and we can have > broader commitment to testing. I'm super happy with that. As Nate

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

> If we push it to Sept 1 freeze, I'll personally spend a lot of time testing. > > What can I do to help convince the Jun1 folks that Sept1 is acceptable? I can come around to that. At this point, I really just want us to have a date we can start talking to/planning around.

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

If we push it to Sept 1 freeze, I'll personally spend a lot of time testing. What can I do to help convince the Jun1 folks that Sept1 is acceptable? On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Ben Bromhead wrote: > I would also suggest if you can't commit to June 2 due to timing

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

I would also suggest if you can't commit to June 2 due to timing or feature set. If you could provide the absolute minimum date / features that would let you commit to testing, that would be useful. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM Ben Bromhead wrote: > We (Instaclustr) are

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

We (Instaclustr) are also happy to get started testing. Including (internal to Instaclustr) production workloads. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:45 PM Nate McCall wrote: > To be clear, more who is willing to commit to testing should we go this > route. > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018,

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

To be clear, more who is willing to commit to testing should we go this route. On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 7:41 AM Nate McCall wrote: > Ok. So who's willing to test 4.0 on June 2nd? Let's start a sign up. > > We (tlp) will put some resources on this via going through some canned >

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Ok. So who's willing to test 4.0 on June 2nd? Let's start a sign up. We (tlp) will put some resources on this via going through some canned scenarios we have internally. We aren't in a position to test data validity (yet) but we can do a lot around cluster behavior. Who else has specific stuff

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

On 04/12/2018 10:57 AM, Michael Shuler wrote: > Our current internal trunk test summary is attached. We're actually in a > pretty good state on the baseline test suites, thanks to > committers/reviewers. > > Due to compute resource limitations and error noise on py2->py3 update, > the following

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Our current internal trunk test summary is attached. We're actually in a pretty good state on the baseline test suites, thanks to committers/reviewers. Due to compute resource limitations and error noise on py2->py3 update, the following test suites are not being run internally on our CI system,

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:07 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > I feel this discussion is starting to go in every directions and getting > farther away from any decision/progress so I'll attempt to summarize what I > hear, where I stand and *more importantly*, why. > > So as far as

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Maybe people would have preferred to know early about potential deadlines, before investing a lot of time into "pet ticket" contributions? It's hard enough to make assumptions about if and when contributions make it into a release, but with feature freeze deadlines falling from the sky any time,

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Here is what I think will happen if we don’t decide whether it will be 3 months or more to gather support. 1. We freeze the features 2. No one works on testing it for months but I hope I am wrong 3. Features get merged in trunk. 4. We now need to cut 4.1 or whatever is next as this has more

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM Sankalp Kohli wrote: > We can fix test after freezing if there are resources people are willing > to put. We need to gather support to see who can help with the 3 points I > have mentioned and when. > Again though, without disagreeing

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Also I am +1 freezing anytime even today if someone can show what the plan is post freeze. May be I should start another thread to gather support for these items > On Apr 12, 2018, at 02:21, Sankalp Kohli wrote: > > We can fix test after freezing if there are

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

We can fix test after freezing if there are resources people are willing to put. We need to gather support to see who can help with the 3 points I have mentioned and when. On Apr 12, 2018, at 02:13, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: >> >> I agree there's little point freezing if

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

> > I agree there's little point freezing if we can't even test the system > properly. > I'll mention that I really don't follow the logic of such claim. Why can't we fix the testing of the system after freezing? In fact, isn't the whole point of freezing agreeing that it's high time to fix

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

I feel this discussion is starting to go in every directions and getting farther away from any decision/progress so I'll attempt to summarize what I hear, where I stand and *more importantly*, why. So as far as "what do we do for 4.0", I hear it boil down to 3 options: 1) we freeze June 1. It