[ANNOUNCE] Apache Cassandra 4.0.0 test artifact available

[Mick Semb Wever]

The test build of Cassandra 4.0.0 is available.

sha1: a46146fb4ae87bfb8c6a895b2987d3a8944cab39
Git:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/4.0.0-tentative
Maven Artifacts:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1239/org/apache/cassandra/cassandra-all/4.0.0/

The Source and Build Artifacts, and the Debian and RPM packages and
repositories, are available here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cassandra/4.0.0/

A vote of this test build will be initiated next week. That vote will not
close before the two week grace period since 4.0-rc2 has passed.

[1]: CHANGES.txt:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=blob_plain;f=CHANGES.txt;hb=refs/tags/4.0.0-tentative
[2]: NEWS.txt:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=blob_plain;f=NEWS.txt;hb=refs/tags/4.0.0-tentative

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

[Maulin Vasavada]

Based on my experience I definitely like the process where everything that
needs to be discussed about CEP remains in DISCUSS thread.

Also I like the comment made above " The jira ticket and PR can be created
as a PoC to help explain and illustrate the CEP, but nothing more than
that.". Sometimes it is necessary to really try making code changes and
realize the potential design challenge OR pitfalls and PoC PRs really help
in getting better CEP outcomes.

I am not sure about JIRA ticket creation while CEP is in DISCUSS. In my
particular example of CEP-9 I just carried over a process from another
Apache project. I think JIRA can be raised once CEP gets Approved and
changes can be officially tracked as JIRA ticket.

Thanks
Maulin

On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 10:21 AM Scott Hirleman 
wrote:

> Or maybe someone _can_ comment on the JIRA but should also for sure put
> that same comment in the discussion thread? That way, it is at worst
> redundant and doesn't get lost as a comment on a JIRA many may not see?
>
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 3:32 AM Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>
> > > I think that’s a bit extreme – …
> >
> >
> >
> > Yeah, that was kinda my intention. But my thinking was just about getting
> > us out of our habits of using JIRA. Of course I didn't mean any censure.
> > Once we have some precedence in place, common-sense should prevail.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps we should put together a cheat sheet for kinds of discussion and
> > > what venue to raise them in at different phases in a CEP lifecycle.
> >
> >
> >
> > Agree.
> >
>
>
> --
> Scott Hirleman
> scott.hirle...@gmail.com
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

[Scott Hirleman]

Or maybe someone _can_ comment on the JIRA but should also for sure put
that same comment in the discussion thread? That way, it is at worst
redundant and doesn't get lost as a comment on a JIRA many may not see?

On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 3:32 AM Mick Semb Wever  wrote:

> > I think that’s a bit extreme – …
>
>
>
> Yeah, that was kinda my intention. But my thinking was just about getting
> us out of our habits of using JIRA. Of course I didn't mean any censure.
> Once we have some precedence in place, common-sense should prevail.
>
>
> Perhaps we should put together a cheat sheet for kinds of discussion and
> > what venue to raise them in at different phases in a CEP lifecycle.
>
>
>
> Agree.
>


-- 
Scott Hirleman
scott.hirle...@gmail.com

Re: Patch Available status 2021-07-07

[Scott Hirleman]

Thanks so much Brandon and Benjamin for your important work here, very
valuable and much appreciated.

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:20 AM Benjamin Lerer  wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> One of the main issues that has been raised in the* Attracting new
> contributors thread *is the time needed before a patch is reviewed.
> This is true for everybody but specially for newcomers that hesitate to
> manifest themselves on the dev channel or by pinging people directly.
>
> Part of the issue is a visibility problem and I hope that by providing more
> visibility to the tickets that are Patch Available we can improve the
> situation.
>
>
> *Newcomers Patch Available tickets: *
>
> We currently have 48 tickets from non-committers that are marked as Patch
> Available.
> Brandon has been going through the backlog doing some triaging for more
> than a week. I joined his effort a bit. Any help is welcome.
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15663?jql=project%20%3D%20Cassandra%20AND%20assignee%20not%20in%20membersOf(Committers)%20AND%20assignee%20not%20in%20(brandon.williams%2C%20dikanggu%2C%20urandom%2C%20jay.zhuang%2C%20yifanc%2C%20cnlwsu%2C%20carlyeks%2C%20tjake%2C%20e.dimitrova%2C%20pauloricardomg)%20AND%20status%20%3D%20%22Patch%20Available%22%20%20%20ORDER%20BY%20updated%20DESC
>
> Currently 30 of those tickets do not have a reviewer:
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13834?jql=project%20%3D%20Cassandra%20AND%20assignee%20not%20in%20membersOf(Committers)%20AND%20assignee%20not%20in%20(brandon.williams%2C%20dikanggu%2C%20urandom%2C%20jay.zhuang%2C%20yifanc%2C%20cnlwsu%2C%20carlyeks%2C%20tjake%2C%20e.dimitrova%2C%20pauloricardomg)%20AND%20status%20%3D%20%22Patch%20Available%22%20%20%20AND%20cf%5B12313420%5D%20is%20EMPTY%20ORDER%20BY%20updated%20DESC
>
> We also need a second reviewer for CASSANDRA-14325
>   (Java executable
> check succeeds despite no java on PATH)
>
> *Committers Patch Available tickets:*
>
> We also have 33 tickets from committers that are marked as Patch Available
> and 17 of those tickets have no reviewers.
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16776?jql=project%20%3D%20Cassandra%20AND%20(assignee%20in%20membersOf(Committers)%20OR%20assignee%20in%20(brandon.williams%2C%20dikanggu%2C%20urandom%2C%20jay.zhuang%2C%20yifanc%2C%20cnlwsu%2C%20carlyeks%2C%20tjake%2C%20e.dimitrova%2C%20pauloricardomg))%20AND%20status%20%3D%20%22Patch%20Available%22%20AND%20cf%5B12313420%5D%20is%20EMPTY%20ORDER%20BY%20updated%20DESC
>
>
> As you can see we have a significant amount of Patch Available tickets. Any
> help to review those tickets is welcome.
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>


-- 
Scott Hirleman
scott.hirle...@gmail.com

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

[Mick Semb Wever]

> I think that’s a bit extreme – …



Yeah, that was kinda my intention. But my thinking was just about getting
us out of our habits of using JIRA. Of course I didn't mean any censure.
Once we have some precedence in place, common-sense should prevail.


Perhaps we should put together a cheat sheet for kinds of discussion and
> what venue to raise them in at different phases in a CEP lifecycle.



Agree.

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

[bened...@apache.org]

I think that’s a bit extreme – it seems perfectly fine to comment on Jira, but 
high level discussions around scope, goals and potential confounders should 
ideally happen on the DISCUSS thread. It’s a difficult balancing act, choosing 
the venue for a discussion, so let’s not censure people unnecessarily.

Perhaps we should put together a cheat sheet for kinds of discussion and what 
venue to raise them in at different phases in a CEP lifecycle. As this process 
is likely to be quite dynamic over a CEP’s lifetime - once a vote passes, it’s 
likely that aspects of a CEP will be revisited as a result of discussions 
(including high level ones) on Jira and other venues, but we won’t want to 
bring those discussions immediately back to another DISCUSS thread – it’s 
likely that would wait until some consensus emerges amongst those involved in 
the work, to present to the dev list for further discussion.


From: Mick Semb Wever 
Date: Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 11:14
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org 
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process
My understanding is that they should have been raised on the DISCUSSION
> thread. Once those concerns are addressed or discussed, I believe that if
> nobody raised more concerns we should trigger a VOTE.
>
> Is my understanding correct?
>



Agree, we shouldn't be commenting on jira tickets or on PRs until the CEP
process has passed a vote. The jira ticket and PR can be created as a PoC
to help explain and illustrate the CEP, but nothing more than that.

Thanks for raising this Benjamin. It's important we make the new process of
CEPs easy for adoption.

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

[Mick Semb Wever]

My understanding is that they should have been raised on the DISCUSSION
> thread. Once those concerns are addressed or discussed, I believe that if
> nobody raised more concerns we should trigger a VOTE.
>
> Is my understanding correct?
>



Agree, we shouldn't be commenting on jira tickets or on PRs until the CEP
process has passed a vote. The jira ticket and PR can be created as a PoC
to help explain and illustrate the CEP, but nothing more than that.

Thanks for raising this Benjamin. It's important we make the new process of
CEPs easy for adoption.

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

[bened...@apache.org]

That’s how I understand the process, yes. Voting to accept the CEP just 
indicates that the broad strokes painted by the CEP are acceptable to the 
community, and a patch can be brought forward with the expectation that it will 
be accepted once it meets the other criteria for acceptance.

From: Benjamin Lerer 
Date: Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 10:59
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org 
Subject: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process
Hi everybody,

CEPs are now a required step for important changes to the Cassandra code
base. Nevertheless, this process is new for all of us and beyond creating a
CEP it seems a bit unclear what needs to be done to get the CEP approved.

I will take as an example the CEP-9: Make SSLContext creation pluggable

that has been provided with a JIRA ticket ( CASSANDRA-1
 ) and a PR.

Sumanth and Stefan both raised some high level concerns on the JIRA ticket.
My understanding is that they should have been raised on the DISCUSSION
thread. Once those concerns are addressed or discussed, I believe that if
nobody raised more concerns we should trigger a VOTE.

Is my understanding correct? What criteria should be met before we trigger
VOTE?

One other point of confusion is the agreement on the CEPs versus the
agreement on the patch. Agreeing on the CEP in my opinion does not mean
that we agree on the patch. As patch is not required before we agree on the
CEP. Am I correct?

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

[DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

[Benjamin Lerer]

Hi everybody,

CEPs are now a required step for important changes to the Cassandra code
base. Nevertheless, this process is new for all of us and beyond creating a
CEP it seems a bit unclear what needs to be done to get the CEP approved.

I will take as an example the CEP-9: Make SSLContext creation pluggable

that has been provided with a JIRA ticket ( CASSANDRA-1
 ) and a PR.

Sumanth and Stefan both raised some high level concerns on the JIRA ticket.
My understanding is that they should have been raised on the DISCUSSION
thread. Once those concerns are addressed or discussed, I believe that if
nobody raised more concerns we should trigger a VOTE.

Is my understanding correct? What criteria should be met before we trigger
VOTE?

One other point of confusion is the agreement on the CEPs versus the
agreement on the patch. Agreeing on the CEP in my opinion does not mean
that we agree on the patch. As patch is not required before we agree on the
CEP. Am I correct?

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Re: [DISCUSS] Jira state for second reviewer

[Benjamin Lerer]

That sounds good to me. Thanks a lot Brandon and Ekaterina for taking care
of that.

Le mer. 7 juil. 2021 à 23:47, Ekaterina Dimitrova  a
écrit :

> Hey everyone,
> Considering the latest report of patches which need a reviewer, I think
> this new Jira state is a great addition.
> I took it one step further today and asked for it to be available after
> PATCH AVAILABLE too. This is already implemented. I hope Brandon doesn’t
> mind my intervention. The reason for that decision was that sometimes we
> have already first reviewer assigned who is still not working on a review
> but this shouldn’t stop us to be looking already for a second reviewer.
>
> Best regards,
> Ekaterina
>
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 9:41, Benjamin Lerer  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Le jeu. 1 juil. 2021 à 05:58, Caleb Rackliffe 
> a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > > On Jun 30, 2021, at 4:38 PM, Brandon Williams 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Since our project governance requires two committers, which in some
> > > > circumstances may mean two committers need to review, I'd like to add
> > > > another state to our jira such that finding tickets that need a
> second
> > > > reviewer is possible, since it is not currently.
> > > >
> > > > On slack, Paulo Motta suggested this:
> > > >
> > > > Patch Available -> Review in Progress <-> Needs Reviewer* -> Ready To
> > > Commit
> > > >
> > > > Where "needs reviewer" is an optional state that can then move back
> to
> > > > "Review in Progress" and carry on.  This would affect all tickets in
> > > > the project, so I'm curious if there are any thoughts or objections?
> > > >
> > > > Kind Regards,
> > > > Brandon
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>