Re: Roadmap for 4.0

To close the loop on this thread: I don't think we need to do an official vote here, but let's just put it on our calendars that we are aiming to branch off 4.0 and freeze the first week of Sept. - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Seems to me we should put September first to an official vote so we can finish up with this mess. On 13 April 2018 at 02:27, Rahul Singh wrote: > I can commit some resources on my team - especially as we onboard some of > our summer apprentices. > > I have some

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

I can commit some resources on my team - especially as we onboard some of our summer apprentices. I have some proprietary stress tools geared for Cassandra read / writes that are a little better and creates a little more realistic data than Cassandra stress. -- Rahul Singh

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

I think the reason there's such a kerfuffle around a 'close-to-now' freeze date is more of a concern as to when cassandra 5.0 is going to be released. I'm assuming if people thought 5.0 was going to be released in early 2019 no one would have a problem with setting the freeze date of 4.0 to

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

September also works for Instaclustr. On Fri., 13 Apr. 2018, 08:27 Jon Haddad, wrote: > Sept works for me too. I’ll be involved in the validation process before > the cutoff date. > > > > On Apr 12, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Carlos Rolo wrote: > > > > I will

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

The thing is, good intentions are cheap. And they get cheaper the further out in the future the point of action gets. Realistically, the main difference between June and September is we ship three months later. More, if we manage to land large, destabilizing patches in the meantime. I’m very

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Sept works for me too. I’ll be involved in the validation process before the cutoff date. > On Apr 12, 2018, at 3:17 PM, Carlos Rolo wrote: > > I will commit time to test (not a full validation, but at least go through > operations) regardless of the date. Both seems fine

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

I will commit time to test (not a full validation, but at least go through operations) regardless of the date. Both seems fine to me. Regards, Carlos Juzarte Rolo Cassandra Consultant / Datastax Certified Architect / Cassandra MVP Pythian - Love your data rolo@pythian | Twitter: @cjrolo |

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

The Netflix team prefers September as well. We don't have time before that to do a full certification (e2e and performance testing), but can probably work it into end of Q3 / start of Q4. I personally hope that the extra time gives us as a community a chance to come up with a compelling user

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Hi, +1 to September 1st. I know I will have much better availability then. Ariel On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, at 5:15 PM, Sankalp Kohli wrote: > +1 with Sept 1st as I am seeing willingness for people to test it after it > > > On Apr 12, 2018, at 13:59, Ben Bromhead wrote: > > >

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

+1 with Sept 1st as I am seeing willingness for people to test it after it > On Apr 12, 2018, at 13:59, Ben Bromhead wrote: > > While I would prefer earlier, if Sept 1 gets better buy-in and we can have > broader commitment to testing. I'm super happy with that. As Nate

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

> If we push it to Sept 1 freeze, I'll personally spend a lot of time testing. > > What can I do to help convince the Jun1 folks that Sept1 is acceptable? I can come around to that. At this point, I really just want us to have a date we can start talking to/planning around.

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

If we push it to Sept 1 freeze, I'll personally spend a lot of time testing. What can I do to help convince the Jun1 folks that Sept1 is acceptable? On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Ben Bromhead wrote: > I would also suggest if you can't commit to June 2 due to timing

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

I would also suggest if you can't commit to June 2 due to timing or feature set. If you could provide the absolute minimum date / features that would let you commit to testing, that would be useful. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:49 PM Ben Bromhead wrote: > We (Instaclustr) are

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

We (Instaclustr) are also happy to get started testing. Including (internal to Instaclustr) production workloads. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:45 PM Nate McCall wrote: > To be clear, more who is willing to commit to testing should we go this > route. > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018,

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

To be clear, more who is willing to commit to testing should we go this route. On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 7:41 AM Nate McCall wrote: > Ok. So who's willing to test 4.0 on June 2nd? Let's start a sign up. > > We (tlp) will put some resources on this via going through some canned >

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Ok. So who's willing to test 4.0 on June 2nd? Let's start a sign up. We (tlp) will put some resources on this via going through some canned scenarios we have internally. We aren't in a position to test data validity (yet) but we can do a lot around cluster behavior. Who else has specific stuff

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

On 04/12/2018 10:57 AM, Michael Shuler wrote: > Our current internal trunk test summary is attached. We're actually in a > pretty good state on the baseline test suites, thanks to > committers/reviewers. > > Due to compute resource limitations and error noise on py2->py3 update, > the following

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Our current internal trunk test summary is attached. We're actually in a pretty good state on the baseline test suites, thanks to committers/reviewers. Due to compute resource limitations and error noise on py2->py3 update, the following test suites are not being run internally on our CI system,

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:07 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > I feel this discussion is starting to go in every directions and getting > farther away from any decision/progress so I'll attempt to summarize what I > hear, where I stand and *more importantly*, why. > > So as far as

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Maybe people would have preferred to know early about potential deadlines, before investing a lot of time into "pet ticket" contributions? It's hard enough to make assumptions about if and when contributions make it into a release, but with feature freeze deadlines falling from the sky any time,

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Here is what I think will happen if we don’t decide whether it will be 3 months or more to gather support. 1. We freeze the features 2. No one works on testing it for months but I hope I am wrong 3. Features get merged in trunk. 4. We now need to cut 4.1 or whatever is next as this has more

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:21 AM Sankalp Kohli wrote: > We can fix test after freezing if there are resources people are willing > to put. We need to gather support to see who can help with the 3 points I > have mentioned and when. > Again though, without disagreeing

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Also I am +1 freezing anytime even today if someone can show what the plan is post freeze. May be I should start another thread to gather support for these items > On Apr 12, 2018, at 02:21, Sankalp Kohli wrote: > > We can fix test after freezing if there are

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

We can fix test after freezing if there are resources people are willing to put. We need to gather support to see who can help with the 3 points I have mentioned and when. On Apr 12, 2018, at 02:13, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: >> >> I agree there's little point freezing if

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

> > I agree there's little point freezing if we can't even test the system > properly. > I'll mention that I really don't follow the logic of such claim. Why can't we fix the testing of the system after freezing? In fact, isn't the whole point of freezing agreeing that it's high time to fix

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

I feel this discussion is starting to go in every directions and getting farther away from any decision/progress so I'll attempt to summarize what I hear, where I stand and *more importantly*, why. So as far as "what do we do for 4.0", I hear it boil down to 3 options: 1) we freeze June 1. It

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

> > I also don't see a place for minor releases as they exist today. It seems > like they are almost all the overhead of a major release with unnecessary > restrictions on what is possible. Yeah this, I've never heard of anything that we don't do in "minors", and it seems to me that everyone

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

If we have to decide on the date, we need to get confirmation on the following which I mentioned earlier. We dont want to freeze things and no one to make progress on 1. Who can sign up for fixing the tests(including upgrade tests). I don't think we can release without tests passing. We can still

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Hi, What is the role of minor releases in Cassandra? I know that we have guarantees we make about minor releases that we don't make about major releases (is this summarized anywhere?), but is there anyone who actually thinks those guarantees are worth it vs having major releases on a shorter

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

One clarifying point, potentially trivia, but: On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:42 AM, Ben Bromhead wrote: > > We haven't seen any actual binding -1s yet on June 1, despite obvious > concerns and plenty of +1s > > Just to be clear: binding -1 votes are vetos for code changes, but

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

I agree that not releasing semi-regularly is not good for the project. I think our habit of releasing half working software is much worse though. Our testing/stability story is not iron clad. I really think the bar for releasing 4.0 should be that the people in this thread are running the code

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:35 AM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > Seriously, what's the rush to branch? Do we all love merging so much we > want to do a few more times just for the sake of merging? If nothing > diverges, there's nothing gained from the branch, and if it did diverge, we >

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Huh, I was writing my response for quite a while and getting distracted so didn't see this, but yeah if I had a vote, this would obviously have it. On 11 April 2018 at 03:03, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > > -- > Jeff Jirsa > > > On Apr 10, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Josh McKenzie

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

> > In thinking about this, what is stopping us from branching 4.0 a lot > sooner? Like now-ish? This will let folks start hacking on trunk with > new stuff, and things we've gotten close on can still go in 4.0 Agree with Jeff here that this is not necessary. The branch point should be the

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

-- Jeff Jirsa On Apr 10, 2018, at 5:24 PM, Josh McKenzie wrote: >> >> 50'ish days is too short to draw a line in the sand, >> especially as people balance work obligations with Cassandra feature >> development. > > What's a reasonable alternative / compromise for

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Also in this time we should try to see who can do 3 things I mentioned in my earlier email > On Apr 10, 2018, at 17:50, Sankalp Kohli wrote: > > I think moving it to August/Sept will be better > > On Apr 10, 2018, at 17:24, Josh McKenzie wrote:

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

I think moving it to August/Sept will be better On Apr 10, 2018, at 17:24, Josh McKenzie wrote: >> >> 50'ish days is too short to draw a line in the sand, >> especially as people balance work obligations with Cassandra feature >> development. > > What's a reasonable

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Seriously, what's the rush to branch? Do we all love merging so much we want to do a few more times just for the sake of merging? If nothing diverges, there's nothing gained from the branch, and if it did diverge, we add work for no real gain. Beyond that, I still don't like June 1. Validating

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

A lot of good points and everyone's input is really appreciated. So it sounds like we are building consensus towards June 1 for 4.0 branch point/feature freeze and the goal is stability. (No one has come with a hard NO anyway). I want to reiterate Sylvain's point that we can do whatever we want

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Hi, I am +1 on freezing features at some point. Here are my thoughts 1. The reason it took 1.5 years b/w 3.0 and 4.0 is because 3.0 was released(not cut) too early. There were so many critical bugs in it for months after the release. Most people have just finished or about to upgrade to 3.0.

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Jonathan Haddad wrote: [ ... ] > If they're not close to finished now why even consider them for > the 4.0 release? They're so core they should be merged into trunk at the > beginning of the cycle for the follow up release in order to get as

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

> I'd like to see pluggable storage and transient replica tickets land, for > starters. So after all the fuss and scandal about incremental repair and MV not stable and being downgraded to experimental, I would like to suggest that those new features are also flagged as experimental for some time

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

If you are going to make 4 bigger as long as we call out that 3.11.x (or whatever) will keep getting patches for stability only that's all that's needed. We haven't gone to 3.x releases many places yet as we wait for a release that will be stable longer. Knowing 4 is going to be bigger I wouldn't

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

> > If they're not close to finished now why even consider them for the 4.0 > release? Merging in major features at the end of a release cycle is not the path to stability, imo. On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Jonathan Haddad wrote: > There's always more stuff to try to

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Myself I would put my non-binding vote for the stable side. I think those are both important, but maybe they are best as some of the first things to go into “release after 4.0”, not the last things to go into 4.0. Maybe they would also prove as some incentive to get the next release out the

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

> I'd like to see pluggable storage and transient replica tickets land, for > starters. I think both those features are, frankly, necessary for our future. On the other hand, they both have the following risks: 1. core behavioral changes 2. require changing a (relatively) large surface area of

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

I'd like to see pluggable storage and transient replica tickets land, for starters. On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Ben Bromhead wrote: > > > > For those wanting to delay, are we just dancing around inclusion of > > some pet features? This is fine, I just think we need to

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

> > For those wanting to delay, are we just dancing around inclusion of > some pet features? This is fine, I just think we need to communicate > what we are after if so. > +1 Some solid examples of tickets that won't make it with the proposed timeline and a proposed alternative would help.

RE: Roadmap for 4.0

, as it seems 4.0 is a long way ahead for production usage. Just my 2 EUR cents.  Thanks, Thomas -Original Message- From: Nate McCall [mailto:zznat...@gmail.com] Sent: Freitag, 06. April 2018 06:01 To: dev <dev@cassandra.apache.org> Subject: Re: Roadmap for 4.0 >> >> So long a

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

> > Lay our cards on the table about what we want included in 4.0 and work to > get those in Are you saying we're back to where we started?  For those wanting to delay, are we just dancing around inclusion of > some pet features? This is fine, I just think we need to communicate > what we

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

>> >> So long as non-user-visible improvements, including big ones, can still go >> in 4.0 at that stage, I’m all for it. > > > My understanding is that after June 1st the 4.0 branch would be created and > would be bugfix only. It's not really a feature freeze if you allow > improvements after

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

> > So long as non-user-visible improvements, including big ones, can still go > in 4.0 at that stage, I’m all for it. My understanding is that after June 1st the 4.0 branch would be created and would be bugfix only. It's not really a feature freeze if you allow improvements after that, which is

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

So long as non-user-visible improvements, including big ones, can still go in 4.0 at that stage, I’m all for it. — AY On 5 April 2018 at 21:14:03, Nate McCall (zznat...@gmail.com) wrote: >>> My understanding, from Nate's summary, was June 1 is the freeze date for >>> features. I expect we

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

>>> My understanding, from Nate's summary, was June 1 is the freeze date for >>> features. I expect we would go for at least 4 months (if not longer) >>> testing, fixing bugs, early dogfooding, and so on. I also equated June 1 >>> with the data which we would create a 'cassandra-4.0' branch, and

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

I'm in line w/your thinking here Jason. On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Jonathan Haddad wrote: > That’s exactly what I was thinking too. > > There’s also nothing preventing features from being merged into trunk after > we create the 4.0 branch, which in my opinion is a better

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

That’s exactly what I was thinking too. There’s also nothing preventing features from being merged into trunk after we create the 4.0 branch, which in my opinion is a better approach than trying to jam everything in right before the release. On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:06 PM Jason Brown

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

My understanding, from Nate's summary, was June 1 is the freeze date for features. I expect we would go for at least 4 months (if not longer) testing, fixing bugs, early dogfooding, and so on. I also equated June 1 with the data which we would create a 'cassandra-4.0' branch, and thus the merge

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

June feels a bit too early to me as well. I personally would go prefer end of August / beginning of September. +1 to the idea of having a fixed date, though, just not this one. — AY On 5 April 2018 at 19:20:12, Stefan Podkowinski (s...@apache.org) wrote: June is too early. On 05.04.18

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

June is too early. On 05.04.18 19:32, Josh McKenzie wrote: > Just as a matter of perspective, I'm personally mentally diffing from > when 3.0 hit, not 3.10. > >> commit 96f407bce56b98cd824d18e32ee012dbb99a0286 >> Author: T Jake Luciani >> Date: Fri Nov 6 14:38:34 2015 -0500

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

On 04/05/2018 12:32 PM, Josh McKenzie wrote: > Just as a matter of perspective, I'm personally mentally diffing from > when 3.0 hit, not 3.10. > >> commit 96f407bce56b98cd824d18e32ee012dbb99a0286 >> Author: T Jake Luciani >> Date: Fri Nov 6 14:38:34 2015 -0500 >> 3.0

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Just as a matter of perspective, I'm personally mentally diffing from when 3.0 hit, not 3.10. > commit 96f407bce56b98cd824d18e32ee012dbb99a0286 > Author: T Jake Luciani > Date: Fri Nov 6 14:38:34 2015 -0500 > 3.0 release versions While June feels close to today relative

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

We can take a look on 1st June how things are then decide if we want to freeze it and whats in and whats out. On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Ariel Weisberg wrote: > Hi, > > +1 to having a feature freeze date. June 1st is earlier than I would have > picked. > > Ariel > > On

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Hi, +1 to having a feature freeze date. June 1st is earlier than I would have picked. Ariel On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, at 10:57 AM, Josh McKenzie wrote: > +1 here for June 1. > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Jason Brown wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:31

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

+1 here for June 1. On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Jason Brown wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Blake Eggleston > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On 4/4/18, 5:48 PM, "Jeff Jirsa" wrote: > > > > Earlier than I’d have

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

+1 On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Blake Eggleston wrote: > +1 > > On 4/4/18, 5:48 PM, "Jeff Jirsa" wrote: > > Earlier than I’d have personally picked, but I’m +1 too > > > > -- > Jeff Jirsa > > > > On Apr 4, 2018, at 5:06 PM, Nate

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

+1 On 4/4/18, 5:48 PM, "Jeff Jirsa" wrote: Earlier than I’d have personally picked, but I’m +1 too -- Jeff Jirsa > On Apr 4, 2018, at 5:06 PM, Nate McCall wrote: > > Top-posting as I think this summary is

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

+1 and seriously hoping stuff marked "Patch available" will at least get a chance of cutting in. On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 at 12:43 kurt greaves wrote: > > > > Earlier than I’d have personally picked, but I’m +1 too > > This but +1. > > On 5 April 2018 at 03:04, J. D. Jordan

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

> > Earlier than I’d have personally picked, but I’m +1 too This but +1. On 5 April 2018 at 03:04, J. D. Jordan wrote: > +1 > > > On Apr 4, 2018, at 5:06 PM, Nate McCall wrote: > > > > Top-posting as I think this summary is on point - thanks,

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

+1 > On Apr 4, 2018, at 5:06 PM, Nate McCall wrote: > > Top-posting as I think this summary is on point - thanks, Scott! (And > great to have you back, btw). > > It feels to me like we are coalescing on two points: > 1. June 1 as a freeze for alpha > 2. "Stable" is the new

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:50 PM, Michael Shuler wrote: > On 04/04/2018 07:06 PM, Nate McCall wrote: > > > > It feels to me like we are coalescing on two points: > > 1. June 1 as a freeze for alpha > > 2. "Stable" is the new "Exciting" (and the testing and dogfooding > >

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

+1 On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:50 PM Michael Shuler wrote: > On 04/04/2018 07:06 PM, Nate McCall wrote: > > > > It feels to me like we are coalescing on two points: > > 1. June 1 as a freeze for alpha > > 2. "Stable" is the new "Exciting" (and the testing and dogfooding > >

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

On 04/04/2018 07:06 PM, Nate McCall wrote: > > It feels to me like we are coalescing on two points: > 1. June 1 as a freeze for alpha > 2. "Stable" is the new "Exciting" (and the testing and dogfooding > implied by such before a GA) > > How do folks feel about the above points? +1 +1 :)

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Earlier than I’d have personally picked, but I’m +1 too -- Jeff Jirsa > On Apr 4, 2018, at 5:06 PM, Nate McCall wrote: > > Top-posting as I think this summary is on point - thanks, Scott! (And > great to have you back, btw). > > It feels to me like we are coalescing on

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

+1, well said Scott. > On Apr 4, 2018, at 5:13 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018, 7:06 PM Nate McCall wrote: > >> Top-posting as I think this summary is on point - thanks, Scott! (And >> great to have you back, btw). >> >> It feels to me

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018, 7:06 PM Nate McCall wrote: > Top-posting as I think this summary is on point - thanks, Scott! (And > great to have you back, btw). > > It feels to me like we are coalescing on two points: > 1. June 1 as a freeze for alpha > 2. "Stable" is the new

RE: Roadmap for 4.0

- From: Kenneth Brotman [mailto:kenbrot...@yahoo.com.INVALID] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 4:51 PM To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: RE: Roadmap for 4.0 The group seems to be trying to find a set of features that will define version 4.0. I'm saying that makes things way too complicated

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

Top-posting as I think this summary is on point - thanks, Scott! (And great to have you back, btw). It feels to me like we are coalescing on two points: 1. June 1 as a freeze for alpha 2. "Stable" is the new "Exciting" (and the testing and dogfooding implied by such before a GA) How do folks

RE: Roadmap for 4.0

naturally instead of forcing it. Kenneth Brotman -Original Message- From: Kenneth Brotman [mailto:kenbrot...@yahoo.com.INVALID] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 4:23 PM To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: RE: Roadmap for 4.0 I wouldn't want to add anything to a release that isn't ready

RE: Roadmap for 4.0

I wouldn't want to add anything to a release that isn't ready. Whatever isn't ready can go in a future release. -Original Message- From: Scott Andreas [mailto:sc...@paradoxica.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 4:18 PM To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: Roadmap for 4.0 Re

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

the community up well for some awesome and exciting > stuff that will still be in the pipeline if it doesn't make it to 4.0. That sounds great to me, too. – Scott From: Kenneth Brotman <kenbrot...@yahoo.com.INVALID> Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 2:20:59

RE: Roadmap for 4.0

: Roadmap for 4.0 On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:26 AM, Kenneth Brotman <kenbrot...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > Can I suggest a way of defining the next few progressions as a way of > approaching this? > > How about something like this: > Version 4.0: A major release of

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:26 AM, Kenneth Brotman wrote: > Can I suggest a way of defining the next few progressions as a way of > approaching this? > > How about something like this: > Version 4.0: A major release of as many improvements to the code as >

RE: Roadmap for 4.0

[mailto:jonathan.had...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jon Haddad Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2018 8:00 AM To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: Roadmap for 4.0 Agreed with Josh. There’s nothing set in stone after we release 4.0, trying to extrapolate what we do here for the rest of humanity’s timeline

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

the release strategy. There is no > >> separation between the release strategy for 4.0 and the release strategy > >> for the project, they are the same thing and what is intended to be > >> discussed here. > > > > Not trying to be pedantic here, but the email thr

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

cussion was always about the release strategy. There is no >> separation between the release strategy for 4.0 and the release strategy >> for the project, they are the same thing and what is intended to be >> discussed here. > > Not trying to be pedantic here, but the email t

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

hread is titled "Roadmap for 4.0" and has been concerned with how we get 4.0 out the door. I don't think it's implicit that whatever strategy we settle on for 4.0 is intended to apply to subsequent releases, since the 3.0.X to 3.X to 4.0 relationship/delta is different than a 4

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

> > I'm also a bit sad that we seem to be getting back to our old demons of > trying > to shove as much as we possibly can in the next major as if having a > feature > miss it means it will never happen. That wasn't the intention of this thread, but that's the response I got. Thought I made it

RE: Roadmap for 4.0

stages this year before deploying into production. Production-wise, we are still "stuck" and (more or less) happy with 2.1. Thomas -Original Message- From: alek...@apple.com [mailto:alek...@apple.com] Sent: Mittwoch, 04. April 2018 12:38 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: R

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

3.0 will be the most popular release for probably at least another couple years - I see no good reason to cap its support window. We aren’t Oracle. — AY On 3 April 2018 at 22:29:29, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote: Apache Cassandra 3.0 is supported until 6 months after 4.0

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

> > A hard date for a feature freeze makes sense, a hard date for a release > does not. Strongly agree. We should also collectively define what "Done" looks like post freeze so we don't end up in bike-shedding hell like we have in the past. On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Jeff Jirsa

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

A hard date for a feature freeze makes sense, a hard date for a release does not. -- Jeff Jirsa > On Apr 3, 2018, at 2:29 PM, Michael Shuler wrote: > > On 04/03/2018 03:51 PM, Nate McCall wrote: >>> My concrete proposal would be to declare a feature freeze for 4.0 in

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

On 04/03/2018 03:51 PM, Nate McCall wrote: >> My concrete proposal would be to declare a feature freeze for 4.0 in 2 >> months, >> so say June 1th. That leave some time for finishing features that are in >> progress, but not too much to get derailed. And let's be strict on that >> freeze. > > I

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

> My concrete proposal would be to declare a feature freeze for 4.0 in 2 > months, > so say June 1th. That leave some time for finishing features that are in > progress, but not too much to get derailed. And let's be strict on that > freeze. I quite like this suggestion. Thanks, Sylvain. > After

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

gt;>>>>> 2) Having a huge changelog in a release increases the likelihood of >>>> bugs >>>>>>> that take time to find. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Advantages of a slower release: >>>>>>> 1) We don't do

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

;> > > > >>> In terms of "big" changes I'd like to see land, the ones that come > to > > > >> mind > > > >>> are: > > > >>> > > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9754 - "Birch"

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

and I > >>> wouldn't even lose sleep if it slips, but I'd like to see it land) > >>> > >>> Stuff I'm ok with slipping to 4.X or 5.0, but probably needs to land > on a > >>> major because we'll change something big (like gossip, or the way > schema

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10699 - Strongly >>> consistent schema >>> >>> All that said, what I really care about is building confidence in the >>> release, which means an extended testing cycle. If all of those patches >>> landed tomorrow, I'd

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

e, > > because we need to bake the next major - there's too many changes to > throw > > out an alpha/beta/rc and hope someone actually runs it. > > > > I don't believe Q3/Q4 is realistic, but I may be biased (or jaded). It's > > possible Q3/Q4 alpha/beta is realistic, but

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

, kurt greaves <k...@instaclustr.com> > wrote: > >> Hi friends, >> *TL;DR: Making a plan for 4.0, ideally everyone interested should provide >> up to two lists, one for tickets they can contribute resources to getting >> finished, and one for features they think wou

  1   2   >