Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Paulo Motta]

Nice, thanks for the quick fix! Checked and working now.

On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 21:11 Mick Semb Wever  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 at 00:49, Paulo Motta  wrote:
>
>> >  With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
>> default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
>> objections to this ?
>>
>> It looks like the switch of latest to 5.0 broken some top search links
>> (returns 404 to me):
>>
>> [1] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+configuration
>> [2] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+getting+started
>> [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+install
>> [3] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+jdk
>>
>> Can/should we rollback while we add redirects to the old indexed links?
>>
>
>
> The nav and structure of the docs in 5.0 got a redesign.
>
> I've put in a quick hack that any 404 on any /doc/latest/ page will
> redirect to the page under /doc/stable/
> Appears to be working.  Thanks for spotting this Paulo !
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Mick Semb Wever]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 at 00:49, Paulo Motta  wrote:

> >  With the publication of this release I would like to switch the default
> 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any objections to
> this ?
>
> It looks like the switch of latest to 5.0 broken some top search links
> (returns 404 to me):
>
> [1] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+configuration
> [2] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+getting+started
> [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+install
> [3] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+jdk
>
> Can/should we rollback while we add redirects to the old indexed links?
>


The nav and structure of the docs in 5.0 got a redesign.

I've put in a quick hack that any 404 on any /doc/latest/ page will
redirect to the page under /doc/stable/
Appears to be working.  Thanks for spotting this Paulo !

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Paulo Motta]

>  With the publication of this release I would like to switch the default
'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any objections to
this ?

It looks like the switch of latest to 5.0 broken some top search links
(returns 404 to me):

[1] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+configuration
[2] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+getting+started
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+install
[3] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+jdk

Can/should we rollback while we add redirects to the old indexed links?

On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 2:04 PM Ekaterina Dimitrova 
wrote:

>
>1. “No objections from me since these issues are mostly cosmetic, but
>it would be nice to clear these before the next alpha/beta. I will create a
>ticket for the unknown module warning later if nobody beats me to it.”
>
>
>
>1.
>
>
>1. CASSANDRA-19001
> opened for the
>issue to be checked. Until we have tested/investigated whether the features
>that are supposed to use those modules experience any issues, this is an
>isolated problem that might turn out to be a cosmetic one. So far, we know
>the associated features and the JDK where the warnings are seen.
>
>
> You are right, Paulo, I meant CASSANDRA-18711 is the one that will take
> care of the Security Manager deprecation in the future. I just moved it out
> of triage.
>
> Best regards,
> Ekaterina
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 7:15, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>
>> > As this is alpha release - can we open a ticket to be resolved in the
>>> next alpha/beta? It is up to PMC to decide, of course.
>>>
>>> No objections from me since these issues are mostly cosmetic, but it
>>> would be nice to clear these before the next alpha/beta. I will create a
>>> ticket for the unknown module warning later if nobody beats me to it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I agree.  When these tickets are created please add fixVersion '5.0-beta'
>> to indicate such.
>>
>>
>>

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Mick Semb Wever]

Please mark such bugs with fixVersion 5.0-beta

If there are no more tickets that need API changes (i.e. those that should
be marked fixVersion 5.0-alpha) this then indicates we do not need a
5.0-alpha3 release and can focus towards 5.0-beta1 (regardless of having
blockers open to it).

Appreciate the attention 18993 is getting – we do have a shortlist of beta
blockers that we gotta prioritise !


On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 18:33, Benedict  wrote:

> Yep, data loss bugs are not any old bug. I’m concretely -1 (binding)
> releasing a beta with one that’s either under investigation or confirmed.
>
> As Scott says, hopefully it won’t come to that - the joy of deterministic
> testing is this should be straightforward to triage.
>
> On 4 Nov 2023, at 17:30, C. Scott Andreas  wrote:
>
> I’d happily be the first to vote -1(nb) on a release containing a known
> and reproducible bug that can result in data loss or an incorrect response
> to a query. And I certainly wouldn’t run it.
>
> Since we have a programmatic repro within just a few seconds, this should
> not take long to root-cause.
>
> On Friday, Alex worked to get this reproducing on a Cassandra branch
> rather than via unstaged changes. We should have a published / shareable
> example with details near the beginning of the week.
>
> – Scott
>
> On Nov 4, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Josh McKenzie  wrote:
>
> 
>
> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993
> (assuming it is a bug).
>
> Before a beta? I could see that for rc or GA definitely, but having a
> known (especially non-regressive) data loss bug in a beta seems like it's
> compatible with the guarantees we're providing for it:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle
>
> This release is recommended for test/QA clusters where short(order of
> minutes) downtime during upgrades is not an issue
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:
>
> Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a
> priority in any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned
> on the ticket.
>
> Thanks to Alex for his work on harry!
>
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict  wrote:
>
> Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0,
> but either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential
> known issue.
>
> > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan  wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as
> well?  So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a
> new 4.1.x released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if
> we have a “data not being returned” issue in an existing release?
> >
> >> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict  wrote:
> >>
> >> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993
> (assuming it is a bug).
> >>
>  On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 
> 
>  With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
>  default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
>  objections to this ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1
> >>>
> >>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we
> >>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
> >>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec.
> >>>
> >>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
> >>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing
> >>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
> >>> make it happen.
> >>
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Ekaterina Dimitrova]

   1. “No objections from me since these issues are mostly cosmetic, but it
   would be nice to clear these before the next alpha/beta. I will create a
   ticket for the unknown module warning later if nobody beats me to it.”



   1.


   1. CASSANDRA-19001
    opened for the
   issue to be checked. Until we have tested/investigated whether the features
   that are supposed to use those modules experience any issues, this is an
   isolated problem that might turn out to be a cosmetic one. So far, we know
   the associated features and the JDK where the warnings are seen.


You are right, Paulo, I meant CASSANDRA-18711 is the one that will take
care of the Security Manager deprecation in the future. I just moved it out
of triage.

Best regards,
Ekaterina


On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 7:15, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:

> > As this is alpha release - can we open a ticket to be resolved in the
>> next alpha/beta? It is up to PMC to decide, of course.
>>
>> No objections from me since these issues are mostly cosmetic, but it
>> would be nice to clear these before the next alpha/beta. I will create a
>> ticket for the unknown module warning later if nobody beats me to it.
>>
>
>
> I agree.  When these tickets are created please add fixVersion '5.0-beta'
> to indicate such.
>
>
>

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Benedict]

Yep, data loss bugs are not any old bug. I’m concretely -1 (binding) releasing a beta with one that’s either under investigation or confirmed.As Scott says, hopefully it won’t come to that - the joy of deterministic testing is this should be straightforward to triage.On 4 Nov 2023, at 17:30, C. Scott Andreas  wrote:I’d happily be the first to vote -1(nb) on a release containing a known and reproducible bug that can result in data loss or an incorrect response to a query. And I certainly wouldn’t run it.Since we have a programmatic repro within just a few seconds, this should not take long to root-cause.On Friday, Alex worked to get this reproducing on a Cassandra branch rather than via unstaged changes. We should have a published / shareable example with details near the beginning of the week.– ScottOn Nov 4, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Josh McKenzie  wrote:I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 (assuming it is a bug).Before a beta? I could see that for rc or GA definitely, but having a known (especially non-regressive) data loss bug in a beta seems like it's compatible with the guarantees we're providing for it: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+LifecycleThis release is recommended for test/QA clusters where short(order of minutes) downtime during upgrades is not an issueOn Sat, Nov 4, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a priority in any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned on the ticket.Thanks to Alex for his work on harry!On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict  wrote:Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0, but either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential known issue.  > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan  wrote: >  > Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as well?  So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a new 4.1.x released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if we have a “data not being returned” issue in an existing release? >  >> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict  wrote: >>  >> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 (assuming it is a bug). >>   On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote: >>>  >>>     With the publication of this release I would like to switch the  default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any  objections to this ? >>>  >>>  >>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1 >>>  >>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we >>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and >>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec. >>>  >>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually >>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing >>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to >>> make it happen. >>

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[C. Scott Andreas]

I’d happily be the first to vote -1(nb) on a release containing a known and reproducible bug that can result in data loss or an incorrect response to a query. And I certainly wouldn’t run it.Since we have a programmatic repro within just a few seconds, this should not take long to root-cause.On Friday, Alex worked to get this reproducing on a Cassandra branch rather than via unstaged changes. We should have a published / shareable example with details near the beginning of the week.– ScottOn Nov 4, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Josh McKenzie  wrote:I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 (assuming it is a bug).Before a beta? I could see that for rc or GA definitely, but having a known (especially non-regressive) data loss bug in a beta seems like it's compatible with the guarantees we're providing for it: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+LifecycleThis release is recommended for test/QA clusters where short(order of minutes) downtime during upgrades is not an issueOn Sat, Nov 4, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a priority in any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned on the ticket.Thanks to Alex for his work on harry!On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict  wrote:Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0, but either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential known issue.  > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan  wrote: >  > Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as well?  So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a new 4.1.x released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if we have a “data not being returned” issue in an existing release? >  >> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict  wrote: >>  >> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 (assuming it is a bug). >>   On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote: >>>  >>>     With the publication of this release I would like to switch the  default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any  objections to this ? >>>  >>>  >>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1 >>>  >>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we >>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and >>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec. >>>  >>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually >>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing >>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to >>> make it happen. >>

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Josh McKenzie]

> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 
> (assuming it is a bug).
Before a beta? I could see that for rc or GA definitely, but having a known 
(especially non-regressive) data loss bug in a beta seems like it's compatible 
with the guarantees we're providing for it: 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle

> This release is recommended for test/QA clusters where short(order of 
> minutes) downtime during upgrades is not an issue


On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:
> Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a priority 
> in any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned on the 
> ticket.
> 
> Thanks to Alex for his work on harry!
> 
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict  wrote:
>> Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0, 
>> but either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential 
>> known issue.
>> 
>> > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan  wrote:
>> > 
>> > Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as well? 
>> >  So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a new 
>> > 4.1.x released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if we 
>> > have a “data not being returned” issue in an existing release?
>> > 
>> >> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict  wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 
>> >> (assuming it is a bug).
>> >> 
>>  On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>>  
>>  With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
>>  default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
>>  objections to this ?
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1
>> >>> 
>> >>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we
>> >>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
>> >>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec.
>> >>> 
>> >>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
>> >>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing
>> >>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
>> >>> make it happen.
>> >>

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Ekaterina Dimitrova]

Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a
priority in any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned
on the ticket.

Thanks to Alex for his work on harry!

On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict  wrote:

> Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0,
> but either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential
> known issue.
>
> > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan  wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as
> well?  So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a
> new 4.1.x released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if
> we have a “data not being returned” issue in an existing release?
> >
> >> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict  wrote:
> >>
> >> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993
> (assuming it is a bug).
> >>
>  On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 
> 
>  With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
>  default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
>  objections to this ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1
> >>>
> >>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we
> >>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
> >>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec.
> >>>
> >>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
> >>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing
> >>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
> >>> make it happen.
> >>
>
>

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Benedict]

Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0, but 
either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential known 
issue.

> On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan  wrote:
> 
> Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as well?  
> So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a new 4.1.x 
> released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if we have a 
> “data not being returned” issue in an existing release?
> 
>> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict  wrote:
>> 
>> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 
>> (assuming it is a bug).
>> 
 On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
 
 With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
 default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
 objections to this ?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1
>>> 
>>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we
>>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
>>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec.
>>> 
>>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
>>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing
>>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
>>> make it happen.
>> 

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[J. D. Jordan]

Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as well?  So I 
would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a new 4.1.x 
released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if we have a 
“data not being returned” issue in an existing release?

> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict  wrote:
> 
> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 
> (assuming it is a bug).
> 
>> On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
>>> default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
>>> objections to this ?
>> 
>> 
>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1
>> 
>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we
>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec.
>> 
>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing
>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
>> make it happen.
> 

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Brandon Williams]

I agree and just now opened it for 5.0-beta (among others.)

Kind Regards,
Brandon

On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 11:08 AM Benedict  wrote:
>
> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 
> (assuming it is a bug).
>
> > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
> >
> > 
> >>
> >> With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
> >> default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
> >> objections to this ?
> >
> >
> > I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1
> >
> > With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we
> > work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
> > 5.0-rc1 first week Dec.
> >
> > I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
> > commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing
> > sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
> > make it happen.
>

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Benedict]

I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 
(assuming it is a bug).

> On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
>> default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
>> objections to this ?
> 
> 
> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1
> 
> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we
> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec.
> 
> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing
> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
> make it happen.

Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Mick Semb Wever]

> With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
> default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
> objections to this ?


I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1

With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we
work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
5.0-rc1 first week Dec.

I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing
sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
make it happen.

[RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2 released

[Mick Semb Wever]

The Cassandra team is pleased to announce the release of
 Apache Cassandra version 5.0-alpha2.

This release contains Vector Similarity Search (CEP-30).

 http://cassandra.apache.org/

Downloads of source and binary distributions are listed in our download section:

 http://cassandra.apache.org/download/

This version is an alpha preview release[1] on the 5.0 series. As
always, please pay attention to the release notes[2] and let us
know[3] if you were to encounter any problem.

Please also note what our definition of an alpha release means,
further info at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle

DISCLAIMER, this alpha release does not contain the features:
Transactional Cluster Metadata (CEP-21) and Accord Transactions
(CEP-15).  These features are under discussion to be pushed to a
5.1-alpha1 release, with an eta still this year.

Enjoy!

[1]: CHANGES.txt
https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/cassandra-5.0-alpha2/CHANGES.txt
[2]: NEWS.txt 
https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/cassandra-5.0-alpha2/NEWS.txt
[3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Mick Semb Wever]

>
> > As this is alpha release - can we open a ticket to be resolved in the
> next alpha/beta? It is up to PMC to decide, of course.
>
> No objections from me since these issues are mostly cosmetic, but it would
> be nice to clear these before the next alpha/beta. I will create a ticket
> for the unknown module warning later if nobody beats me to it.
>


I agree.  When these tickets are created please add fixVersion '5.0-beta'
to indicate such.

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Mick Semb Wever]

> 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.



The vote passes with 6 +1s (three binding).


With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
objections to this ?