Re: Release votes

2018-02-16 Thread Ariel Weisberg 
Hi,

I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14241 for this issue. 
You are right there is a solid chunk of failing tests on Apache infrastructure 
that don't fail on CircleCI. I'll find someone to get it done.

I think that fix before commit is only going to happen if we go all the way and 
route every single commit through testing infrastructure that runs all the 
tests multiple times and refuses to merge commits unless the tests pass 
somewhat consistently. Short of that flakey (and hard failing) tests are going 
to keep creeping in (and even then). That's not feasible without much better 
infrastructure available to everyone and it's not a short term thing RN I 
think. I mean maybe we move forward with it on the Apache infrastructure we 
have.

I 'm not sure flakey infrastructure is what is acutely hurting us although we 
do have infrastructure that exposes unreliable tests although maybe that's just 
a matter of framing.

Dealing with flakey tests generally devolves into picking victim(s) via some 
process. Blocking releases on failing tests is a way of picking the people who 
want the next release as victims. Blocking commits on flakey tests is a way of 
making people who want to merge stuff the victim. Doing nothing is making some 
random subset of volunteers who fix the tests as well as all developers who run 
the tests victims as well as end users to a certain extent. Excluding tests and 
running tests multiple times is picking the end user of releases as the victim.

RE multi-pronged. We are currently using a flaky annotation that reruns tests, 
we have skipped tests with JIRAs, we are are re-running tests right now if they 
fail for certain classes of reasons. So we are currently down that road right 
now. I think it's fine but we need a backpressure mechanism because we can't 
keep accruing this kind of thing forever.

In my mind processes for keeping the tests passing need to provide two 
functions, pick victims(s) (task management), and create backpressure (slow new 
development to match defect rate). It seems possible to create backpressure by 
blocking releases, but that fails to pick victims to an extent. Many people 
running C* are so far behind they aren't waiting on that next release. Or they 
are accustomed to running a private fork and backporting. When we were able to 
block commits via informal process I think it helped, but an informal process 
has limitations.

I think blocking commits via automation is going to spread the load out most 
evenly and make it a priority for everyone in the contributor base. We have 16 
apache nodes to work with which I think would handle our current commit load. 
We can fine tune criteria for blocking commits as we go.

I don't have an answer for how we backpressure the utilization of flakey 
annotations and re-running tests. Maybe it's a czar saying no commits until we 
reach some goal done on a period (every 3 months). Maybe we vote on it 
periodically. Czars can be really effective in moving the herd. The Czar does 
need to be able to wield something to motivate some set of contributors to do 
the work. It's not so much about preventing the commits as it is signaling 
unambiguously that this is what we are working on now and if you aren't you are 
working on the wrong thing. It ends up being quite depressing though when you 
end up working through significant amounts of tech debt all at once. It hurts 
less when you have a lot of people working on it.

Ariel

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018, at 6:48 PM, kurt greaves wrote:
> It seems there has been a bit of a slip in testing as of recently, mostly
> due to the fact that there's no canonical testing environment that isn't
> flaky. We probably need to come up with some ideas and a plan on how we're
> going to do testing in the future, and how we're going to make testing
> accessible for all contributors. I think this is the only way we're really
> going to change behaviour. Having an incredibly tedious process and then
> being aggressive about it only leads to resentment and workarounds.
> 
> I'm completely unsure of where dtests are at since the conversion to
> pytest, and there's a lot of failing dtests on the ASF jenkins jobs (which
> appear to be running pytest). As there's currently not a lot of visibility
> into what people are doing with CircleCI for this it's hard to say if
> things are better over there. I'd like to help here if anyone wants to fill
> me in.
> 
> On 15 February 2018 at 21:14, Josh McKenzie  wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > We’ve said in the past that we don’t release without green tests. The PMC
> > > gets to vote and enforce it. If you don’t vote yes without seeing the
> > test
> > > results, that enforces it.
> >
> > I think this is noble and ideal in theory. In practice, the tests take long
> > enough, hardware infra has proven flaky enough, and the tests *themselves*
> > flaky enough, that there's been a consistent low-level of test failure
> > noise

Re: Release votes

2018-02-16 Thread Jason Brown 
Hi,

I'm ecstatic others are now running the tests and, more importantly, that
we're having the conversation.

I've become convinced we cannot always have 100% green tests. I am reminded
of this [1] blog post from Google when thinking about flaky tests.
The TL;DR is "flakiness happens", to the tune of about 1.5% of all tests
across Google.

I am in no way advocating that we simply turn a blind eye to broken or
flaky tests, or shrug our shoulders
and rubber stamp a vote, but instead to accept it when it reasonably
applies.
To achieve this, we might need to have discussion at vote/release time (if
not sooner) to triage flaky tests, but I see that as a good thing.

Thanks,

-Jason

[1]
https://testing.googleblog.com/2016/05/flaky-tests-at-google-and-how-we.html



On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:47 AM, Dinesh Joshi <
dinesh.jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

> I'm new to this project and here are my two cents.
> If there are tests that are constantly failing or flaky and you have had
> releases despite their failures, then they're not useful and can be
> disabled. They can always be reenabled if they are in fact valuable. Having
> 100% blue dashboard is not idealistic IMHO. Hardware failures are harder
> but they can be addressed too.
> I could pitch in to fix the noisy tests or just help in other ways to get
> the dashboard to blue.
> Dinesh
> On Thursday, February 15, 2018, 1:14:33 PM PST, Josh McKenzie <
> jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:
>  >
> > We’ve said in the past that we don’t release without green tests. The PMC
> > gets to vote and enforce it. If you don’t vote yes without seeing the
> test
> > results, that enforces it.
>
> I think this is noble and ideal in theory. In practice, the tests take long
> enough, hardware infra has proven flaky enough, and the tests *themselves*
> flaky enough, that there's been a consistent low-level of test failure
> noise that makes separating signal from noise in this context very time
> consuming. Reference 3.11-test-all for example re:noise:
> https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/Cassandra/job/
> Cassandra-3.11-test-all/test/?width=1024=768
>
> Having spearheaded burning test failures to 0 multiple times and have them
> regress over time, my gut intuition is we should have one person as our
> Source of Truth with a less-flaky source for release-vetting CI (dedicated
> hardware, circle account, etc) we can use as a reference to vote on release
> SHA's.
>
> We’ve declared this a requirement multiple times
>
> Declaring things != changed behavior, and thus != changed culture. The
> culture on this project is one of having a constant low level of test
> failure noise in our CI as a product of our working processes. Unless we
> change those (actually block release w/out green board, actually
> aggressively block merge w/any failing tests, aggressively retroactively
> track down test failures on a daily basis and RCA), the situation won't
> improve. Given that this is a volunteer organization / project, that kind
> of daily time investment is a big ask.
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
>
> > Moving this to it’s own thread:
> >
> > We’ve declared this a requirement multiple times and then we occasionally
> > get a critical issue and have to decide whether it’s worth the delay. I
> > assume Jason’s earlier -1 on attempt 1 was an enforcement of that earlier
> > stated goal.
> >
> > It’s up to the PMC. We’ve said in the past that we don’t release without
> > green tests. The PMC gets to vote and enforce it. If you don’t vote yes
> > without seeing the test results, that enforces it.
> >
> > --
> > Jeff Jirsa
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 15, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Josh McKenzie 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > What would it take for us to get green utest/dtests as a blocking part
> of
> > > the release process? i.e. "for any given SHA, here's a link to the
> tests
> > > that passed" in the release vote email?
> > >
> > > That being said, +1.
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Nate McCall 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Michael Shuler <
> mich...@pbandjelly.org
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.16.
> > >>>
> > >>> sha1: 890f319142ddd3cf2692ff45ff28e71001365e96
> > >>> Git:
> > >>> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=
> > >> shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.16-tentative
> > >>> Artifacts:
> > >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> > >> orgapachecassandra-1157/org/apache/cassandra/apache-cassandra/3.0.16/
> > >>> Staging repository:
> > >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> > >> orgapachecassandra-1157/
> > >>>
> > >>> Debian and RPM packages are available here:
> > >>> http://people.apache.org/~mshuler
> > >>>
> > >>> *** This release addresses an important fix for CASSANDRA-14092 ***
> > >>>"Max ttl of 20 years will overflow localDeletionTime"
> > >>>

Re: Release votes

2018-02-16 Thread Dinesh Joshi 
I'm new to this project and here are my two cents.
If there are tests that are constantly failing or flaky and you have had 
releases despite their failures, then they're not useful and can be disabled. 
They can always be reenabled if they are in fact valuable. Having 100% blue 
dashboard is not idealistic IMHO. Hardware failures are harder but they can be 
addressed too.
I could pitch in to fix the noisy tests or just help in other ways to get the 
dashboard to blue.
Dinesh
On Thursday, February 15, 2018, 1:14:33 PM PST, Josh McKenzie 
 wrote: 
 >
> We’ve said in the past that we don’t release without green tests. The PMC
> gets to vote and enforce it. If you don’t vote yes without seeing the test
> results, that enforces it.

I think this is noble and ideal in theory. In practice, the tests take long
enough, hardware infra has proven flaky enough, and the tests *themselves*
flaky enough, that there's been a consistent low-level of test failure
noise that makes separating signal from noise in this context very time
consuming. Reference 3.11-test-all for example re:noise:
https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/Cassandra/job/Cassandra-3.11-test-all/test/?width=1024=768

Having spearheaded burning test failures to 0 multiple times and have them
regress over time, my gut intuition is we should have one person as our
Source of Truth with a less-flaky source for release-vetting CI (dedicated
hardware, circle account, etc) we can use as a reference to vote on release
SHA's.

We’ve declared this a requirement multiple times

Declaring things != changed behavior, and thus != changed culture. The
culture on this project is one of having a constant low level of test
failure noise in our CI as a product of our working processes. Unless we
change those (actually block release w/out green board, actually
aggressively block merge w/any failing tests, aggressively retroactively
track down test failures on a daily basis and RCA), the situation won't
improve. Given that this is a volunteer organization / project, that kind
of daily time investment is a big ask.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:

> Moving this to it’s own thread:
>
> We’ve declared this a requirement multiple times and then we occasionally
> get a critical issue and have to decide whether it’s worth the delay. I
> assume Jason’s earlier -1 on attempt 1 was an enforcement of that earlier
> stated goal.
>
> It’s up to the PMC. We’ve said in the past that we don’t release without
> green tests. The PMC gets to vote and enforce it. If you don’t vote yes
> without seeing the test results, that enforces it.
>
> --
> Jeff Jirsa
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Josh McKenzie  wrote:
> >
> > What would it take for us to get green utest/dtests as a blocking part of
> > the release process? i.e. "for any given SHA, here's a link to the tests
> > that passed" in the release vote email?
> >
> > That being said, +1.
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Nate McCall 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Michael Shuler  >
> >> wrote:
> >>> I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.16.
> >>>
> >>> sha1: 890f319142ddd3cf2692ff45ff28e71001365e96
> >>> Git:
> >>> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=
> >> shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.16-tentative
> >>> Artifacts:
> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> >> orgapachecassandra-1157/org/apache/cassandra/apache-cassandra/3.0.16/
> >>> Staging repository:
> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> >> orgapachecassandra-1157/
> >>>
> >>> Debian and RPM packages are available here:
> >>> http://people.apache.org/~mshuler
> >>>
> >>> *** This release addresses an important fix for CASSANDRA-14092 ***
> >>>    "Max ttl of 20 years will overflow localDeletionTime"
> >>>    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092
> >>>
> >>> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed).
> >>>
> >>> [1]: (CHANGES.txt) https://goo.gl/rLj59Z
> >>> [2]: (NEWS.txt) https://goo.gl/EkrT4G
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> 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
> >>
> >>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>
>

RE: Release votes

2018-02-15 Thread Kenneth Brotman 
I'd like to help as well.  For me the issue is I have only my time to 
contribute.  The resources to test Cassandra extensively are beyond that of 
most individuals including me, aren't they?  If resources are made available 
and I can help, count me in.

Also, perhaps having a standard reference like Slender Cassandra (18 nodes 
total, two regions, three AZ's total, six nodes per AZ) would help.  I'll have 
it done very soon.

Kenneth Brotman

-Original Message-
From: kurt greaves [mailto:k...@instaclustr.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 3:48 PM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Release votes

It seems there has been a bit of a slip in testing as of recently, mostly due 
to the fact that there's no canonical testing environment that isn't flaky. We 
probably need to come up with some ideas and a plan on how we're going to do 
testing in the future, and how we're going to make testing accessible for all 
contributors. I think this is the only way we're really going to change 
behaviour. Having an incredibly tedious process and then being aggressive about 
it only leads to resentment and workarounds.

I'm completely unsure of where dtests are at since the conversion to pytest, 
and there's a lot of failing dtests on the ASF jenkins jobs (which appear to be 
running pytest). As there's currently not a lot of visibility into what people 
are doing with CircleCI for this it's hard to say if things are better over 
there. I'd like to help here if anyone wants to fill me in.

On 15 February 2018 at 21:14, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:

> >
> > We’ve said in the past that we don’t release without green tests. 
> > The PMC gets to vote and enforce it. If you don’t vote yes without 
> > seeing the
> test
> > results, that enforces it.
>
> I think this is noble and ideal in theory. In practice, the tests take 
> long enough, hardware infra has proven flaky enough, and the tests 
> *themselves* flaky enough, that there's been a consistent low-level of 
> test failure noise that makes separating signal from noise in this 
> context very time consuming. Reference 3.11-test-all for example re:noise:
> https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/Cassandra/job/
> Cassandra-3.11-test-all/test/?width=1024=768
>
> Having spearheaded burning test failures to 0 multiple times and have 
> them regress over time, my gut intuition is we should have one person 
> as our Source of Truth with a less-flaky source for release-vetting CI 
> (dedicated hardware, circle account, etc) we can use as a reference to 
> vote on release SHA's.
>
> We’ve declared this a requirement multiple times
>
> Declaring things != changed behavior, and thus != changed culture. The 
> culture on this project is one of having a constant low level of test 
> failure noise in our CI as a product of our working processes. Unless 
> we change those (actually block release w/out green board, actually 
> aggressively block merge w/any failing tests, aggressively 
> retroactively track down test failures on a daily basis and RCA), the 
> situation won't improve. Given that this is a volunteer organization / 
> project, that kind of daily time investment is a big ask.
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Moving this to it’s own thread:
> >
> > We’ve declared this a requirement multiple times and then we 
> > occasionally get a critical issue and have to decide whether it’s 
> > worth the delay. I assume Jason’s earlier -1 on attempt 1 was an 
> > enforcement of that earlier stated goal.
> >
> > It’s up to the PMC. We’ve said in the past that we don’t release 
> > without green tests. The PMC gets to vote and enforce it. If you 
> > don’t vote yes without seeing the test results, that enforces it.
> >
> > --
> > Jeff Jirsa
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 15, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > What would it take for us to get green utest/dtests as a blocking 
> > > part
> of
> > > the release process? i.e. "for any given SHA, here's a link to the
> tests
> > > that passed" in the release vote email?
> > >
> > > That being said, +1.
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Michael Shuler <
> mich...@pbandjelly.org
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.16.
> > >>>
> > >>> sha1: 890f319142ddd3cf2692ff45ff28e71001365e96
> > >>> Git:
>

Re: Release votes

2018-02-15 Thread kurt greaves 
It seems there has been a bit of a slip in testing as of recently, mostly
due to the fact that there's no canonical testing environment that isn't
flaky. We probably need to come up with some ideas and a plan on how we're
going to do testing in the future, and how we're going to make testing
accessible for all contributors. I think this is the only way we're really
going to change behaviour. Having an incredibly tedious process and then
being aggressive about it only leads to resentment and workarounds.

I'm completely unsure of where dtests are at since the conversion to
pytest, and there's a lot of failing dtests on the ASF jenkins jobs (which
appear to be running pytest). As there's currently not a lot of visibility
into what people are doing with CircleCI for this it's hard to say if
things are better over there. I'd like to help here if anyone wants to fill
me in.

On 15 February 2018 at 21:14, Josh McKenzie  wrote:

> >
> > We’ve said in the past that we don’t release without green tests. The PMC
> > gets to vote and enforce it. If you don’t vote yes without seeing the
> test
> > results, that enforces it.
>
> I think this is noble and ideal in theory. In practice, the tests take long
> enough, hardware infra has proven flaky enough, and the tests *themselves*
> flaky enough, that there's been a consistent low-level of test failure
> noise that makes separating signal from noise in this context very time
> consuming. Reference 3.11-test-all for example re:noise:
> https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/Cassandra/job/
> Cassandra-3.11-test-all/test/?width=1024=768
>
> Having spearheaded burning test failures to 0 multiple times and have them
> regress over time, my gut intuition is we should have one person as our
> Source of Truth with a less-flaky source for release-vetting CI (dedicated
> hardware, circle account, etc) we can use as a reference to vote on release
> SHA's.
>
> We’ve declared this a requirement multiple times
>
> Declaring things != changed behavior, and thus != changed culture. The
> culture on this project is one of having a constant low level of test
> failure noise in our CI as a product of our working processes. Unless we
> change those (actually block release w/out green board, actually
> aggressively block merge w/any failing tests, aggressively retroactively
> track down test failures on a daily basis and RCA), the situation won't
> improve. Given that this is a volunteer organization / project, that kind
> of daily time investment is a big ask.
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
>
> > Moving this to it’s own thread:
> >
> > We’ve declared this a requirement multiple times and then we occasionally
> > get a critical issue and have to decide whether it’s worth the delay. I
> > assume Jason’s earlier -1 on attempt 1 was an enforcement of that earlier
> > stated goal.
> >
> > It’s up to the PMC. We’ve said in the past that we don’t release without
> > green tests. The PMC gets to vote and enforce it. If you don’t vote yes
> > without seeing the test results, that enforces it.
> >
> > --
> > Jeff Jirsa
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 15, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Josh McKenzie 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > What would it take for us to get green utest/dtests as a blocking part
> of
> > > the release process? i.e. "for any given SHA, here's a link to the
> tests
> > > that passed" in the release vote email?
> > >
> > > That being said, +1.
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Nate McCall 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Michael Shuler <
> mich...@pbandjelly.org
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.16.
> > >>>
> > >>> sha1: 890f319142ddd3cf2692ff45ff28e71001365e96
> > >>> Git:
> > >>> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=
> > >> shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.16-tentative
> > >>> Artifacts:
> > >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> > >> orgapachecassandra-1157/org/apache/cassandra/apache-cassandra/3.0.16/
> > >>> Staging repository:
> > >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> > >> orgapachecassandra-1157/
> > >>>
> > >>> Debian and RPM packages are available here:
> > >>> http://people.apache.org/~mshuler
> > >>>
> > >>> *** This release addresses an important fix for CASSANDRA-14092 ***
> > >>>"Max ttl of 20 years will overflow localDeletionTime"
> > >>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092
> > >>>
> > >>> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed).
> > >>>
> > >>> [1]: (CHANGES.txt) https://goo.gl/rLj59Z
> > >>> [2]: (NEWS.txt) https://goo.gl/EkrT4G
> > >>>
> > >>> 
> -
> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>

Re: Release votes

2018-02-15 Thread Josh McKenzie 
>
> We’ve said in the past that we don’t release without green tests. The PMC
> gets to vote and enforce it. If you don’t vote yes without seeing the test
> results, that enforces it.

I think this is noble and ideal in theory. In practice, the tests take long
enough, hardware infra has proven flaky enough, and the tests *themselves*
flaky enough, that there's been a consistent low-level of test failure
noise that makes separating signal from noise in this context very time
consuming. Reference 3.11-test-all for example re:noise:
https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/Cassandra/job/Cassandra-3.11-test-all/test/?width=1024=768

Having spearheaded burning test failures to 0 multiple times and have them
regress over time, my gut intuition is we should have one person as our
Source of Truth with a less-flaky source for release-vetting CI (dedicated
hardware, circle account, etc) we can use as a reference to vote on release
SHA's.

We’ve declared this a requirement multiple times

Declaring things != changed behavior, and thus != changed culture. The
culture on this project is one of having a constant low level of test
failure noise in our CI as a product of our working processes. Unless we
change those (actually block release w/out green board, actually
aggressively block merge w/any failing tests, aggressively retroactively
track down test failures on a daily basis and RCA), the situation won't
improve. Given that this is a volunteer organization / project, that kind
of daily time investment is a big ask.

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:

> Moving this to it’s own thread:
>
> We’ve declared this a requirement multiple times and then we occasionally
> get a critical issue and have to decide whether it’s worth the delay. I
> assume Jason’s earlier -1 on attempt 1 was an enforcement of that earlier
> stated goal.
>
> It’s up to the PMC. We’ve said in the past that we don’t release without
> green tests. The PMC gets to vote and enforce it. If you don’t vote yes
> without seeing the test results, that enforces it.
>
> --
> Jeff Jirsa
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Josh McKenzie  wrote:
> >
> > What would it take for us to get green utest/dtests as a blocking part of
> > the release process? i.e. "for any given SHA, here's a link to the tests
> > that passed" in the release vote email?
> >
> > That being said, +1.
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Nate McCall 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Michael Shuler  >
> >> wrote:
> >>> I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.16.
> >>>
> >>> sha1: 890f319142ddd3cf2692ff45ff28e71001365e96
> >>> Git:
> >>> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=
> >> shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.16-tentative
> >>> Artifacts:
> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> >> orgapachecassandra-1157/org/apache/cassandra/apache-cassandra/3.0.16/
> >>> Staging repository:
> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> >> orgapachecassandra-1157/
> >>>
> >>> Debian and RPM packages are available here:
> >>> http://people.apache.org/~mshuler
> >>>
> >>> *** This release addresses an important fix for CASSANDRA-14092 ***
> >>>"Max ttl of 20 years will overflow localDeletionTime"
> >>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092
> >>>
> >>> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed).
> >>>
> >>> [1]: (CHANGES.txt) https://goo.gl/rLj59Z
> >>> [2]: (NEWS.txt) https://goo.gl/EkrT4G
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> 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
> >>
> >>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>
>

Release votes

2018-02-15 Thread Jeff Jirsa 
Moving this to it’s own thread:

We’ve declared this a requirement multiple times and then we occasionally get a 
critical issue and have to decide whether it’s worth the delay. I assume 
Jason’s earlier -1 on attempt 1 was an enforcement of that earlier stated goal. 

It’s up to the PMC. We’ve said in the past that we don’t release without green 
tests. The PMC gets to vote and enforce it. If you don’t vote yes without 
seeing the test results, that enforces it. 

-- 
Jeff Jirsa


> On Feb 15, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Josh McKenzie  wrote:
> 
> What would it take for us to get green utest/dtests as a blocking part of
> the release process? i.e. "for any given SHA, here's a link to the tests
> that passed" in the release vote email?
> 
> That being said, +1.
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Nate McCall  wrote:
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Michael Shuler 
>> wrote:
>>> I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.16.
>>> 
>>> sha1: 890f319142ddd3cf2692ff45ff28e71001365e96
>>> Git:
>>> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=
>> shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.16-tentative
>>> Artifacts:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
>> orgapachecassandra-1157/org/apache/cassandra/apache-cassandra/3.0.16/
>>> Staging repository:
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
>> orgapachecassandra-1157/
>>> 
>>> Debian and RPM packages are available here:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~mshuler
>>> 
>>> *** This release addresses an important fix for CASSANDRA-14092 ***
>>>"Max ttl of 20 years will overflow localDeletionTime"
>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092
>>> 
>>> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed).
>>> 
>>> [1]: (CHANGES.txt) https://goo.gl/rLj59Z
>>> [2]: (NEWS.txt) https://goo.gl/EkrT4G
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 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
>> 
>> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org