Re: Failing tests 2016-09-15

2016-09-16 Thread Oleksandr Petrov
I've been able to reproduce both SASI statics (saved sstables, going to take a closer look) and 11031 tests with novnode (looks like paging problem that was not appearing when all parts of partition key were locked), will create a Jira ticket today. On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:24 AM Joel Knighton

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.9

2016-09-16 Thread Sylvain Lebresne
+1 On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Sam Tunnicliffe wrote: > +1 > > On 15 Sep 2016 19:58, "Jake Luciani" wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.9. > > > > sha1: d600f51ee1a3eb7b30ce3c409129567b70c22012 > > Git: > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.9

2016-09-16 Thread Jonathan Ekwempu
+1 On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Sam Tunnicliffe wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On 15 Sep 2016 19:58, "Jake Luciani" wrote: > > > > > I propose the following artifacts for

Re: Proposal - 3.5.1

2016-09-16 Thread Sylvain Lebresne
As probably pretty much everyone at this point, I agree the tick-tock experiment isn't working as well as it should and that it's probably worth course correcting. I happen to have been thinking about this quite a bit already as it turns out so I'm going to share my reasoning and suggestion below,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.9

2016-09-16 Thread Michael Shuler
non-binding +1 Here's the testing summary on the 3.0.9-tentative tag: http://12.am/tmp/3.0.9-tests.png -- Michael On 09/15/2016 01:57 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.9. > > sha1: d600f51ee1a3eb7b30ce3c409129567b70c22012 > Git: >

Re: Proposal - 3.5.1

2016-09-16 Thread Edward Capriolo
If you all have never seen the movie "grandma's boy" I suggest it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJLQ5DHmw-U There is one funny seen where the product/project person says something like, "The game is ready. We have fixed ALL THE BUGS". The people who made the movie probably think the coders

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.9

2016-09-16 Thread Dave Brosius
+1 On 09/15/2016 02:57 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.9. sha1: d600f51ee1a3eb7b30ce3c409129567b70c22012 Git: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.9-tentative Artifacts:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.9

2016-09-16 Thread Gary Dusbabek
+1 On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.9. > > sha1: d600f51ee1a3eb7b30ce3c409129567b70c22012 > Git: > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a= > shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.9-tentative >

Re: Proposal - 3.5.1

2016-09-16 Thread Sylvain Lebresne
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Blake Eggleston wrote: > Clearly, we won’t get to this point right away, but it should definitely > be a goal. > I'm not entirely clear on why anyone would read in what I'm saying that it shouldn't be a goal. I'm a huge proponent of this

Re: Proposal - 3.5.1

2016-09-16 Thread Jonathan Haddad
I've worked on a few projects where we've had a branch that new stuff went in before merging to master / trunk. What you've described reminds me a lot of git-flow (http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/) although not quite the same. I'll be verbose in this email to minimize the

Re: Proposal - 3.5.1

2016-09-16 Thread Edward Capriolo
"The historical trend with the Cassandra codebase has been to test minimally, throw the code over the wall, and get feedback from people putting it in prod who run into issues." At the summit Brandon and a couple others were making fun over range tombstones from thrift

Re: Proposal - 3.5.1

2016-09-16 Thread Jonathan Ellis
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Jonathan Haddad wrote: > TL;DR: > Release every 3 months > Support for 6 > Keep a stable trunk > New features get merged into trunk but the standard for code quality and > testing needs to be property defined as something closer to

Re: Proposal - 3.5.1

2016-09-16 Thread Sylvain Lebresne
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Jonathan Haddad wrote: > > This is a different mentality from having a "features" branch, where it's > implied that at times it's acceptable that it not be stable. I absolutely never implied that, though I willingly admit my choice of branch

Re: Proposal - 3.5.1

2016-09-16 Thread Jonathan Haddad
What I was trying to suggest is that the *goal* of trunk should always be releasable, and the alpha releases would be the means of testing that. If the goal is to always be releasable, we move towards achieving that goal by improving modularity, test coverage and test granularity. Yes, it's very

Re: Proposal - 3.5.1

2016-09-16 Thread Blake Eggleston
 I'm not even sure it's reasonable to  expect from *any* software, and even less so for an open-source  project based on volunteering. Not saying it wouldn't be amazing, it  would, I just don't believe it's realistic. Postgres does a pretty good job of this. This sort of thinking is a self

Re: Proposal - 3.5.1

2016-09-16 Thread Jonathan Ellis
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Jonathan Haddad wrote: > What I was trying to suggest is that the *goal* of trunk should always be > releasable, and the alpha releases would be the means of testing that. If > the goal is to always be releasable, we move towards achieving

Re: Proposal - 3.5.1

2016-09-16 Thread Jonathan Haddad
Yep - the progress that's been made on trunk recently has been excellent and should continue. The spirit of tick tock - stable trunk - should not change, just that the release cycle did not support what humans are comfortable with maintaining or deploying. On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:08 AM