I don't think outside people will know the distinction between alpha and beta - for them anything which isn't GA doesn't get deployed (and even then they might wait another year or two).
People following this mailing list would lilkey know that 5.0-beta-1 is pretty close to 5.0-alpha-3 -- so I am supporting releasing to hit the date, At this point it's semantics... Thanks, German ________________________________ From: Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 3:12 AM To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-beta1 I'm gonna take a moment to outline the question. Here we have a point in time where a time-driven release process clashes with the alpha/beta release naming convention: we want to have a beta ready _before_ the Summit. Here's the Cassandra release lifecycle document [1] that I found (still under discussion I think) and according to the 'beta' definition we should have a green CI and no regressions for a beta release. This means that there may be known bugs in the new features we are trying to ship. Unless I'm not missing something, 5.0 currently meets the 'beta' criteria and the definition itself sounds clear to me. So, the question is - should we find a better place for the [1] page and move it somewhere under the 'officially accepted'? :-) [1] https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcwiki.apache.org%2Fconfluence%2Fdisplay%2FCASSANDRA%2FRelease%2BLifecycle&data=05%7C01%7CGerman.Eichberger%40microsoft.com%7C1ec418c7eb5040f7acaf08dbf1955153%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638369395848575700%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=hE9tInVzW9GAhR7IbuMASiOpTaHuaMb9455HVBRaMx4%3D&reserved=0<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle> On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 at 07:39, Jacek Lewandowski <lewandowski.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> If we end up not releasing a final 5.0 artifact by a Cassandra Summit it >> will signal to the community that we’re prioritizing stability and it could >> be a good opportunity to get people to test the beta or RC before we stamp >> it as production ready. > > > I agree with Paulo's comment > > czw., 30 lis 2023 o 04:44 Paulo Motta <pa...@apache.org> napisał(a): >> >> > if any contributor has an opinion which is not technically refuted it will >> > usually be backed by a PMC via a binding -1 >> >> clarifying a bit my personal view: if any contributor has an opinion against >> a proposal (in this case this release proposal) that is not refuted it will >> usually be backed by a PMC via binding -1 >> >> Opinions supporting the proposal are also valuable, provided there are no >> valid claims against a proposal. >> >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 22:27 Paulo Motta <pa...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> To me, the goal of a beta is to find unknown bugs. If no new bugs are found >>> during a beta release, then it can be automatically promoted to RC via >>> re-tagging. Likewise, if no new bugs are found during a RC after X time, >>> then it can be promoted to final. >>> >>> If we end up not releasing a final 5.0 artifact by a Cassandra Summit it >>> will signal to the community that we’re prioritizing stability and it could >>> be a good opportunity to get people to test the beta or RC before we stamp >>> it as production ready. >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> > Aaron (and anybody who takes the time to follow this list, really), your >>> > opinion matters, that's why we discuss it here. >>> >>> +1, PMC are just officers who endorse community decisions, so if any >>> contributor has an opinion which is not technically refuted it will usually >>> be backed by a PMC via a binding -1 (as seen on this thread) >>> >>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 20:04 Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 3:28 AM Aleksey Yeshchenko <alek...@apple.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> -1 on cutting a beta1 in this state. An alpha2 would be acceptable now, >>>>> but I’m not sure there is significant value to be had from it. Merge the >>>>> fixes for outstanding issues listed above, then cut beta1. >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>> Agree with Aleksey. -1 on a beta we know has issues with a top-line new >>>> feature. >>>> >>>>
