+1 from me assuming we have tickets and two committer +1’s on them for everything being committed to trunk, and CI is working/passing before it merges. The usual things, but I want to make sure we do not compromise on any of them as we try to “move fast” here.
-Jeremiah Jordan On Oct 23, 2023 at 8:50:46 AM, Sam Tunnicliffe <s...@beobal.com> wrote: > +1 from me too. > > Regarding Benedict's point, backwards incompatibility should be minimal; > we modified snitch behaviour slightly, so that local snitch config only > relates to the local node, all peer info is fetched from cluster metadata. > There is also a minor change to the way failed bootstraps are handled, as > with TCM they require an explicit cancellation step (running a nodetool > command). > > Whether consensus decrees that this constitutes a major bump or not, I > think decoupling these major projects from 5.0 is the right move. > > > On 23 Oct 2023, at 12:57, Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > > I’m cool with this. > > We may have to think about numbering as I think TCM will break some > backwards compatibility and we might technically expect the follow-up > release to be 6.0 > > Maybe it’s not so bad to have such rapid releases either way. > > On 23 Oct 2023, at 12:52, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > The TCM work (CEP-21) is in its review stage but being well past our > cut-off date¹ for merging, and now jeopardising 5.0 GA efforts, I would > like to propose the following. > > We merge TCM and Accord only to trunk. Then branch cassandra-5.1 and cut > an immediate 5.1-alpha1 release. > > I see this as a win-win scenario for us, considering our current > situation. (Though it is unfortunate that Accord is included in this > scenario because we agreed it to be based upon TCM.) > > This will mean… > - We get to focus on getting 5.0 to beta and GA, which already has a ton > of features users want. > - We get an alpha release with TCM and Accord into users hands quickly > for broader testing and feedback. > - We isolate GA efforts on TCM and Accord – giving oss and downstream > engineers time and patience reviewing and testing. TCM will be the biggest > patch ever to land in C*. > - Give users a choice for a more incremental upgrade approach, given just > how many new features we're putting on them in one year. > - 5.1 w/ TCM and Accord will maintain its upgrade compatibility with all > 4.x versions, just as if it had landed in 5.0. > > > The risks/costs this introduces are > - If we cannot stabilise TCM and/or Accord on the cassandra-5.1 branch, > and at some point decide to undo this work, while we can throw away the > cassandra-5.1 branch we would need to do a bit of work reverting the > changes in trunk. This is a _very_ edge case, as confidence levels on the > design and implementation of both are already tested and high. > - We will have to maintain an additional branch. I propose that we treat > the 5.1 branch in the same maintenance window as 5.0 (like we have with 3.0 > and 3.11). This also adds the merge path overhead. > - Reviewing of TCM and Accord will continue to happen post-merge. This > is not our normal practice, but this work will have already received its > two +1s from committers, and such ongoing review effort is akin to GA > stabilisation work on release branches. > > > I see no other ok solution in front of us that gets us at least both the > 5.0 beta and TCM+Accord alpha releases this year. Keeping in mind users > demand to start experimenting with these features, and our Cassandra Summit > in December. > > > 1) https://lists.apache.org/thread/9c5cnn57c7oqw8wzo3zs0dkrm4f17lm3 > > > >
