Re: QA signup

+1 for publishing official snapshot artifacts for 4.0 and even other branches. We're publishing snapshot artifacts to our internal artifactory. One minor bug we found is: currently build.xml won't publish any snapshot artifact: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12704 On Thu, Sep

Re: QA signup

I favor versioned nightlies for testing so everyone is using the exact binary distribution. As far as actually building the packages go, I would prefer a Docker based solution like Jon mentioned. It provides a controlled, reproducible, clean room environment. Ideally the build script should

Re: QA signup

Sure - I'm not disagreeing with you that pre-built packages would be nice to have. That said, if someone's gone through the trouble of building an entire testing infrastructure and has hundreds of machines available, running `docker-compose up build-deb` is likely not a major issue. If I'm

Re: QA signup

Mick – Got it, thanks and sorry to have misunderstood. No fault in your writing at all; that was my misreading. Agreed with you and Kurt; I can’t think of a pressing need or immediate use for the Maven artifacts. As you mentioned, all of the examples I’d listed require binary artifacts only.

Re: QA signup

It's pretty much only third party plugins. I need it for the LDAP authenticator, and StratIO's lucene plugin will also need it. I know there are users out there with their own custom plugins that would benefit from it as well (and various other open source projects). It would make it easier,

Re: QA signup

Sorry about the terrible english in my last email. > On the target audience: > > [snip] > For developers building automation around testing and > validation, it’d be great to have a common build to work from rather > than each developer producing these builds themselves. Sure. My question

Re: QA signup

It seems to me that improving / simplifying the process of building the packages might solve this problem better. For example, in the tests you linked to, they were using a custom build that hadn't been rolled into trunk. I expect we're going to see a lot of that. If we make building a deb

Re: QA signup

Got it, thanks! On the target audience: This would primarily be C* developers who are working on development, testing, and validation of the release. The performance testing exercise Joey, Vinay, Sumanth, Jason, Jordan, and Dinesh completed yesterday is a good example [1]. For developers

Re: QA signup

Scott, > @Mick, thanks for your reply re: publishing snapshots/nightlies. In > terms of what’s needed to configure these, would it be automation around > building release artifacts, publishing jars to the Maven snapshots repo, … Maven artefacts are deployed to the ASF snapshot repository in

Re: QA signup

@Mick, thanks for your reply re: publishing snapshots/nightlies. In terms of what’s needed to configure these, would it be automation around building release artifacts, publishing jars to the Maven snapshots repo, and to dist/dev/cassandra on dist.apache.org for binary

Re: QA signup

> Periodic SNAPSHOT builds sounds great. I'd feel much better about builds > published as date- or SHA-stamped snapshots / nightlies rather than > calling them alphas at this point, as everyone's testing work is > beginning. Can someone offer details on what would need to be done to >

Re: QA signup

/testing_apache_cassandra.html. From: Joseph Lynch Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 1:20:19 PM To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: QA signup I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet but we probably want to consider releasing 4.0 alpha jars to maven central soon so the open

Re: QA signup

I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet but we probably want to consider releasing 4.0 alpha jars to maven central soon so the open source ecosystem can start testing a consistent Cassandra 4.0; for example I had to hack 4.0 into Priam's build [1] by manually building a jar and checking it in

Re: QA signup

Really good idea JD. Keeping all the tests under an umbrella ticket for the feature with everything linked back makes a lot of sense. On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:09 PM J. D. Jordan wrote: > I would suggest that JIRA’s tagged as 4.0 blockers be created for the list > once it is fleshed out. Test

Re: QA signup

start. > Jon, you can add my team to that signup sheet. > > /pelle > > -Original Message- > From: Varun Barala > Sent: den 6 september 2018 15:16 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: Re: QA signup > > +1 > I personally would like to contribute. > >

RE: QA signup

@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: QA signup +1 I personally would like to contribute. On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 8:51 PM Jonathan Haddad wrote: > For 4.0, I'm thinking it would be a good idea to put together a list > of the things that need testing and see if people are willing to help > tes

Re: QA signup

> On Sep 6, 2018, at 10:27 AM, Jonathan Haddad wrote: > > I completely agree with you, Sankalp. I didn't want to dig too deep into > the underlying testing methodology (and I still think we shouldn't just > yet) but if the goal is to have confidence in the release, our QA process > needs to be

Re: QA signup

I would suggest that JIRA’s tagged as 4.0 blockers be created for the list once it is fleshed out. Test plans and results could be posted to said JIRAs, to be closed once a given test passes. Any bugs found can also then be related back to such a ticket for tracking them as well. -Jeremiah >

Re: QA signup

I completely agree with you, Sankalp. I didn't want to dig too deep into the underlying testing methodology (and I still think we shouldn't just yet) but if the goal is to have confidence in the release, our QA process needs to be comprehensive. I believe that having focused teams for each

Re: QA signup

Thanks for starting this Jon. Instead of saying "I tested streaming", we should define what all was tested like was all data transferred, what happened when stream failed, etc. Based on talking to a few users, looks like most testing is done by doing an operation or running a load and seeing if it

Re: QA signup

I was thinking along the same lines. For this to be successful I think either weekly or bi-weekly summary reports back to the mailing list by the team lead for each subsection on what's been tested and how it's been tested will help keep things moving along. In my opinion the lead for each team

Re: QA signup

Thanks for staring this thread Jon! On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 5:51 AM Jonathan Haddad wrote: > For 4.0, I'm thinking it would be a good idea to put together a list of the > things that need testing and see if people are willing to help test / break > those things. My goal here is to get as much

Re: QA signup

+1 I personally would like to contribute. On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 8:51 PM Jonathan Haddad wrote: > For 4.0, I'm thinking it would be a good idea to put together a list of the > things that need testing and see if people are willing to help test / break > those things. My goal here is to get as