-0 to cutting a beta we know has a very obvious correctness flaw with a fix already understood
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:40 AM Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com> wrote: > JD, that wasn't my point. It feels like we are treating a beta like an RC, > which it isn't. Ship Beta 1 now and Beta 2 later. We need people looking > today because they will find new bugs and the signal is lost on alpha. It's > too yolo for most people. > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 10:36 AM 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. >>>> >>>> >>>>
