My wish list: * Add support for arithmetic operators (CASSANDRA-11935) * Allow IN restrictions on column families with collections (CASSANDRA-12654) * Add support for + and - operations on dates (CASSANDRA-11936) * Add the currentTimestamp, currentDate, currentTime and currentTimeUUID functions (CASSANDRA-13132) * Allow selecting Map values and Set elements (CASSANDRA-7396)
Those are mostly useful for timeseries data models and I guess has no significant impact on the internals and operations so the risk of regression is low On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > 9608 (java9) > > -- > Jeff Jirsa > > > > On Apr 2, 2018, at 3:45 AM, Jason Brown <jasedbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The only additional tickets I'd like to mention are: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13971 - Automatic > > certificate management using Vault > > - Stefan's Vault integration work. A sub-ticket, CASSANDRA-14102, > addresses > > encryption at-rest, subsumes CASSANDRA-9633 (SSTable encryption) - which > I > > doubt I would be able to get to any time this year. It would definitely > be > > nice to have a clarified encryption/security story for 4.0. > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11990 - Address rows > rather > > than partitions in SASI > > - a nice update for SASI, but not critical. > > > > -Jason > > > >> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 6:53 PM, Ben Bromhead <b...@instaclustr.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Apologies all, I didn't realize I was responding to this discussion > only on > >> the @user list. One of the perils of responding to a thread that is on > both > >> user and dev... > >> > >> For context, I have included my response to Kurt's previous discussion > on > >> this topic as it only ended up on the user list. > >> > >> *After some further discussions with folks offline, I'd like to revive > this > >> discussion. * > >> > >> *As Kurt mentioned, to keep it simple I if we can simply build consensus > >> around what is in for 4.0 and what is out. We can then start the > process of > >> working off a 4.0 branch towards betas and release candidates. Again as > >> Kurt mentioned, assigning a timeline to it right now is difficult, but > >> having a firm line in the sand around what features/patches are in, then > >> limiting future 4.0 work to bug fixes will give folks a less nebulous > >> target to work on. * > >> > >> *The other thing to mention is that once we have a 4.0 branch to work > off, > >> we at Instaclustr have a commitment to dogfooding the release > candidates on > >> our internal staging and internal production workloads before 4.0 > becomes > >> generally available. I know other folks have similar commitments and > simply > >> having a 4.0 branch with a clear list of things that are in or out will > >> allow everyone to start testing and driving towards a quality release. * > >> > >> *The other thing is that there are already a large number of changes > ready > >> for 4.0, I would suggest not recommending tickets for 4.0 that have not > yet > >> been finished/have outstanding work unless you are the person working > on it > >> (or are offering to work on it instead) and can get it ready for review > in > >> a timely fashion. That way we can build a more realistic working target. > >> For other major breaking changes, there is always 5.0 or 4.1 or > whatever we > >> end up doing :)* > >> > >> Thinking further about it, I would suggest a similar process that was > >> applied to releasing 3.0, in order to get to 4.0: > >> > >> - Clean up ticket labeling. Move tickets unlikely to make it / be > worked > >> on for 4.0 to something else (e.g. 4.x or whatever). > >> - Tickets labeled 4.0 will be the line in the sand, with some trigger > >> ("done") event where all features not done by a certain event will > >> simply > >> move into the next release. For the 3.0 branch, this occurred after a > >> large review of 8099. For 4.0 it could simply be resolving all current > >> blockers/major tickets tagged 4.0... doesn't have to be / nor is it > >> something I would strongly advocate. > >> - Once we hit this "done" event. Cut a Cassandra-4.0 branch and start > >> the alpha/beta/rc cycle from that branch, with only bugfixes going > into > >> it > >> - This, in my mind, is similar to the 3.0 approach > >> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cassandra-dev/ > >> 201503.mbox/%3CCALdd-zjAyiTbZksMeq2LxGwLF5LPhoi_ > >> 4vsjy8JBHBRnsxH%3D8A%40mail.gmail.com%3E, > >> but without the subsequent tick-tock :) > >> > >> There are currently 3 open blockers tagged 4.0, some are old and > probably > >> not really blockers anymore, there are other tickets that may/should be > >> blockers on 4.0: > >> > >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951 > >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994 > >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12042 > >> > >> In terms of major tickets that I would like to see land: > >> > >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7622 Virtual Tables > >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13628 Internode > netty > >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13475 Pluggable > >> Storage > >> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9633 SSTable > >> encryption > >> > >> Ben > >> > >>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:26 PM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Advantages of cutting a release sooner than later: > >>> 1) The project needs to constantly progress forward. Releases are the > >> most > >>> visible part of that. > >>> 2) Having a huge changelog in a release increases the likelihood of > bugs > >>> that take time to find. > >>> > >>> Advantages of a slower release: > >>> 1) We don't do major versions often, and when we do breaking changes > >>> (protocol, file format, etc), we should squeeze in as many as possible > to > >>> avoid having to roll new majors > >>> 2) There are probably few people actually running 3.11 at scale, so > >>> probably few people actually testing trunk. > >>> > >>> In terms of "big" changes I'd like to see land, the ones that come to > >> mind > >>> are: > >>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9754 - "Birch" > (changes > >>> file format) > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13442 - Transient > >>> Replicas (probably adds new replication strategy or similar) > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13628 - Rest of the > >>> internode netty stuff (no idea if this changes internode stuff, but I > bet > >>> it's a lot easier if it lands on a major) > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7622 - Virtual Tables > >>> (selfish inclusion, probably doesn't need to be a major at all, and I > >>> wouldn't even lose sleep if it slips, but I'd like to see it land) > >>> > >>> Stuff I'm ok with slipping to 4.X or 5.0, but probably needs to land > on a > >>> major because we'll change something big (like gossip, or the way > schema > >> is > >>> passed, etc): > >>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9667 - Strongly > >>> consistent membership > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10699 - Strongly > >>> consistent schema > >>> > >>> All that said, what I really care about is building confidence in the > >>> release, which means an extended testing cycle. If all of those patches > >>> landed tomorrow, I'd still expect us to be months away from a release, > >>> because we need to bake the next major - there's too many changes to > >> throw > >>> out an alpha/beta/rc and hope someone actually runs it. > >>> > >>> I don't believe Q3/Q4 is realistic, but I may be biased (or jaded). > It's > >>> possible Q3/Q4 alpha/beta is realistic, but definitely not a release. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 8:29 PM, kurt greaves <k...@instaclustr.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi friends, > >>>> *TL;DR: Making a plan for 4.0, ideally everyone interested should > >> provide > >>>> up to two lists, one for tickets they can contribute resources to > >> getting > >>>> finished, and one for features they think would be desirable for 4.0, > >> but > >>>> not necessarily have the resources to commit to helping with.* > >>>> > >>>> So we had that Roadmap for 4.0 discussion last year, but there was > never > >>>> a conclusion or a plan that came from it. Times getting on and the > >> changes > >>>> list for 4.0 is getting pretty big. I'm thinking it would probably > make > >>>> sense to define some goals to getting 4.0 released/have an actual > plan. > >> 4.0 > >>>> is already going to be quite an unwieldy release with a lot of testing > >>>> required. > >>>> > >>>> Note: the following is open to discussion, if people don't like the > plan > >>>> feel free to speak up. But in the end it's a pretty basic plan and I > >> don't > >>>> think we should over-complicate it, I also don't want to end up in a > >>>> discussion where we "make a plan to make a plan". Regardless of > whatever > >>>> plan we do end up following it would still be valuable to have a list > of > >>>> tickets for 4.0 which is the overall goal of this email - so let's not > >> get > >>>> too worked up on the details just yet (save that for after I > >>>> summarise/follow up). > >>>> > >>>> // TODO > >>>> I think the best way to go about this would be for us to come up with > a > >>>> list of JIRA's that we want included in 4.0, tag these as 4.0, and all > >>>> other improvements as 4.x. We can then aim to release 4.0 once all the > >> 4.0 > >>>> tagged tickets (+bug fixes/blockers) are complete. > >>>> > >>>> Now, the catch is that we obviously don't want to include too many > >>>> tickets in 4.0, but at the same time we want to make sure 4.0 has an > >>>> appealing feature set for both users/operators/developers. To minimise > >>>> scope creep I think the following strategy will help: > >>>> > >>>> We should maintain two lists: > >>>> > >>>> 1. JIRA's that people want in 4.0 and can commit resources to > getting > >>>> them implemented in 4.0. > >>>> 2. JIRA's that people simply think would be desirable for 4.0, but > >>>> currently don't have anyone assigned to them or planned assignment. > >> It > >>>> would probably make sense to label these with an additional tag in > >> JIRA. *(User's > >>>> please feel free to point out what you want here)* > >>>> > >>>> From list 1 will come our source of truth for when we release 4.0. > >> (after > >>>> aggregating a list I will summarise and we can vote on it). > >>>> > >>>> List 2 would be the "hopeful" list, where stories can be picked up > from > >>>> if resourcing allows, or where someone comes along and decides it's > good > >>>> enough to work on. I guess we can also base this on a vote system if > we > >>>> reach the point of including some of them. (but for the moment it's > >> purely > >>>> to get an idea of what users actually want). > >>>> > >>>> Please don't refrain from listing something that's already been > >>>> mentioned. The purpose is to get an idea of everyone's > >> priorities/interests > >>>> and the resources available. We will need multiple resources for each > >>>> ticket, so anywhere we share an interest will make for a lot easier > work > >>>> sharing. > >>>> > >>>> Note that we are only talking about improvements here. Bugs will be > >>>> treated the same as always, and major issues/regressions we'll need to > >> fix > >>>> prior to 4.0 anyway. > >>>> > >>>> TIME FRAME > >>>> Generally I think it's a bad idea to commit to any hard deadline, but > we > >>>> should have some time frames in mind. My idea would be to aim for a > Q3/4 > >>>> 2018 release, and as we go we just review the outstanding improvements > >> and > >>>> decide whether it's worth pushing it back or if we've got enough to > >>>> release. I suppose keep this time frame in mind when choosing your > >> tickets. > >>>> > >>>> We can aim for an earlier date (midyear?) but I figure the > >>>> testing/validation/bugfixing period prior to release might drag on a > >> bit so > >>>> being a bit conservative here. > >>>> The main goal would be to not let list 1 grow unless we're well ahead, > >>>> and only cull from it if we're heavily over-committed or we decide the > >>>> improvement can wait. I assume this all sounds like common sense but > >>>> figured it's better to spell it out now. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> NEXT STEPS > >>>> After 2 weeks/whenever the discussion dies off I'll consolidate all > the > >>>> tickets, relevant comments and follow up with a summary, where we can > >>>> discuss/nitpick issues and come up with a final list to go ahead with. > >>>> > >>>> On a side note, in conjunction with this effort we'll obviously have > to > >>>> do something about validation and testing. I'll keep that out of this > >> email > >>>> for now, but there will be a follow up so that those of us willing to > >> help > >>>> validate/test trunk can avoid duplicating effort. > >>>> > >>>> REVIEW > >>>> This is the list of "huge/breaking" tickets that got mentioned in the > >>>> last roadmap discussion and their statuses. This is not terribly > >> important > >>>> but just so we can keep in mind what we previously talked about. I > >> think we > >>>> leave it up to the relevant contributors to decide whether they want > to > >> get > >>>> the still open tickets into 4.0. > >>>> > >>>> CASSANDRA-9425 Immutable node-local schema > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9425> - Committed > >>>> CASSANDRA-10699 Strongly consistent schema alterations > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10699> - Open, no > >>>> discussion in quite some time. > >>>> CASSANDRA-12229 NIO streaming > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12229> - Committed > >>>> CASSANDRA-8457 NIO messaging > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8457> - Committed > >>>> CASSANDRA-12345 Gossip 2.0 > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12345> - Open, no > sign > >>>> of any action. > >>>> CASSANDRA-9754 Make index info heap friendly for large CQL partitions > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9754> - In progress > >> but > >>>> no update in a long time. > >>>> CASSANDRA-11559 enhanced node representation > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11559> - Open, no > >>>> change since early 2016. > >>>> CASSANDRA-6246 epaxos > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6246> - In progress > >> but > >>>> no update since Feb 2017. > >>>> CASSANDRA-7544 storage port configurable per node > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7544> - Committed > >>>> CASSANDRA-11115 remove thrift support > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11115> - Committed > >>>> CASSANDRA-10857 dropping compact storage > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10857> - Committed > >>>> > >>>> To start us off... > >>>> And here are my lists to get us started. > >>>> 1. > >>>> CASSANDRA-8460 - Tiered/Cold storage for TWCS > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8460> > >>>> CASSANDRA-12783 - Batchlog redesign > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12783> > >>>> CASSANDRA-11559 - Enchance node representation > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11559> > >>>> CASSANDRA-12344 - Forward writes to replacement node with same > >>>> address <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12344> > >>>> CASSANDRA-8119 - More expressive Consistency Levels > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8119> > >>>> CASSANDRA-14210 - Optimise SSTables upgrade task scheduling > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14210> > >>>> CASSANDRA-10540 - RangeAwareCompaction > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10540> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2: > >>>> CASSANDRA-10726 - Read repair inserts should not be blocking > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10726> > >>>> CASSANDRA-9754 - Make index info heap friendly for large CQL > partitions > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9754> > >>>> CASSANDRA-12294 - LDAP auth > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12294> > >>>> CASSANDRA-12151 - Audit logging > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12151> > >>>> CASSANDRA-10495 - Fix streaming with vnodes > >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10495> > >>>> > >>>> Also, here's some handy JQL to start you off: > >>>> project = CASSANDRA AND fixVersion in (4.x, 4.0) AND issue in > >>>> watchedIssues() AND status != Resolved > >>>> > >>>> > >>> -- > >> Ben Bromhead > >> CTO | Instaclustr <https://www.instaclustr.com/> > >> +1 650 284 9692 > >> Reliability at Scale > >> Cassandra, Spark, Elasticsearch on AWS, Azure, GCP and Softlayer > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
