Does anyone have a simple list of new major features desired for 4.0?  It 
should be a list of things desired regardless of judgements of any kind beyond 
that.  Just start with that  if you want to get anywhere.

 

Kenneth Brotman

 

From: Kenneth Brotman [mailto:kenbrot...@yahoo.com.INVALID] 
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 7:30 AM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: RE: Roadmap for 4.0

 

Thanks Ben!  

 

I’m reading a book on Cassandra right now that says “The 4.0 release series is 
scheduled to begin in Fall 2016.”  This is one of the group’s first big tests 
since things changed.  

 

Kenneth Brotman

 

From: Ben Bromhead [mailto:b...@instaclustr.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 6:57 AM
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Roadmap for 4.0

 

After some further discussions with folks offline, I'd like to revive this 
discussion. 

 

As Kurt mentioned, to keep it simple I if we can simply build consensus around 
what is in for 4.0 and what is out. We can then start the process of working 
off a 4.0 branch towards betas and release candidates. Again as Kurt mentioned, 
assigning a timeline to it right now is difficult, but having a firm line in 
the sand around what features/patches are in, then limiting future 4.0 work to 
bug fixes will give folks a less nebulous target to work on. 

 

The other thing to mention is that once we have a 4.0 branch to work off, we at 
Instaclustr have a commitment to dogfooding the release candidates on our 
internal staging and internal production workloads before 4.0 becomes generally 
available. I know other folks have similar commitments and simply having a 4.0 
branch with a clear list of things that are in or out will allow everyone to 
start testing and driving towards a quality release. 

 

The other thing is that there are already a large number of changes ready for 
4.0, I would suggest not recommending tickets for 4.0 that have not yet been 
finished/have outstanding work unless you are the person working on it (or are 
offering to work on it instead) and can get it ready for review in a timely 
fashion. That way we can build a more realistic working target. For major 
breaking changes, there is always 5.0 or 4.1 or whatever we end up doing :)

 

Cheers

 

Ben

 

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:39 PM kurt greaves <k...@instaclustr.com> wrote:

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 definitely not a release. 

Well, this mostly depends on how much stuff to include in 4.0. Either way it's 
not terribly important. If people think 2019 is more realistic we can aim for 
that. As I said, it's just a rough timeframe to keep in mind.

 

3.10 was released in January 2017, and we've got around 180 changes for 4.0 so 
far, and let's be honest, 3.11 is still pretty young so it's going to be a 
significant effort to properly test and verify 4.0. 

Let's just stick to getting a list of changes for the moment. I probably 
shouldn't have mentioned timeframes, let's just keep in mind that we shouldn't 
have such a large set of changes for 4.0 that it takes us years to complete.

 

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 still expect us to be months away from a release, 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. 

Yep. As I said, I'll follow up about testing after we sort out what we're 
actually going to include in 4.0. No point trying to come up with a testing 
plan for 

 

On 13 February 2018 at 04:25, Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Advantages of cutting a release sooner than later:

1) The project needs to constantly progress forward. Releases are the most 
visible part of that.

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 major versions often, and when we do breaking changes (protocol, 
file format, etc), we should squeeze in as many as possible to avoid having to 
roll new majors 

2) There are probably few people actually running 3.11 at scale, so probably 
few people actually testing trunk.

 

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" (changes file 
format)

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13442 - Transient Replicas 
(probably adds new replication strategy or similar)

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13628 - Rest of the internode 
netty stuff (no idea if this changes internode stuff, but I bet it's a lot 
easier if it lands on a major)

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7622 - Virtual Tables (selfish 
inclusion, probably doesn't need to be a major at all, 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 is passed, 
etc):

 

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9667 - Strongly consistent 
membership 

https://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 still expect us to be months away from a release, 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 definitely not a release. 

 

 

 

 

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 8:29 PM, 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 would be desirable for 4.0, but not necessarily 
have the resources to commit to helping with.

 

So we had that Roadmap for 4.0 discussion last year, but there was never a 
conclusion or a plan that came from it. Times getting on and the changes list 
for 4.0 is getting pretty big. I'm thinking it would probably make sense to 
define some goals to getting 4.0 released/have an actual plan. 4.0 is already 
going to be quite an unwieldy release with a lot of testing required.

 

Note: the following is open to discussion, if people don't like the plan feel 
free to speak up. But in the end it's a pretty basic plan and I don't think we 
should over-complicate it, I also don't want to end up in a discussion where we 
"make a plan to make a plan". Regardless of whatever plan we do end up 
following it would still be valuable to have a list of tickets for 4.0 which is 
the overall goal of this email - so let's not get too worked up on the details 
just yet (save that for after I summarise/follow up).

 

// TODO

I think the best way to go about this would be for us to come up with a list of 
JIRA's that we want included in 4.0, tag these as 4.0, and all other 
improvements as 4.x. We can then aim to release 4.0 once all the 4.0 tagged 
tickets (+bug fixes/blockers) are complete.

 

Now, the catch is that we obviously don't want to include too many tickets in 
4.0, but at the same time we want to make sure 4.0 has an appealing feature set 
for both users/operators/developers. To minimise scope creep I think the 
following strategy will help:

 

We should maintain two lists:

1.       JIRA's that people want in 4.0 and can commit resources to getting 
them implemented in 4.0. 

2.       JIRA's that people simply think would be desirable for 4.0, but 
currently don't have anyone assigned to them or planned assignment. It would 
probably make sense to label these with an additional tag in JIRA. (User's 
please feel free to point out what you want here)

>From list 1 will come our source of truth for when we release 4.0. (after 
>aggregating a list I will summarise and we can vote on it). 

 

List 2 would be the "hopeful" list, where stories can be picked up from if 
resourcing allows, or where someone comes along and decides it's good enough to 
work on. I guess we can also base this on a vote system if we reach the point 
of including some of them. (but for the moment it's purely to get an idea of 
what users actually want).

 

Please don't refrain from listing something that's already been mentioned. The 
purpose is to get an idea of everyone's priorities/interests and the resources 
available. We will need multiple resources for each ticket, so anywhere we 
share an interest will make for a lot easier work sharing. 

 

Note that we are only talking about improvements here. Bugs will be treated the 
same as always, and major issues/regressions we'll need to fix prior to 4.0 
anyway.

 

TIME FRAME

Generally I think it's a bad idea to commit to any hard deadline, but we should 
have some time frames in mind. My idea would be to aim for a Q3/4 2018 release, 
and as we go we just review the outstanding improvements and decide whether 
it's worth pushing it back or if we've got enough to release. I suppose keep 
this time frame in mind when choosing your tickets.

 

We can aim for an earlier date (midyear?) but I figure the 
testing/validation/bugfixing period prior to release might drag on a bit so 
being a bit conservative here.

The main goal would be to not let list 1 grow unless we're well ahead, and only 
cull from it if we're heavily over-committed or we decide the improvement can 
wait. I assume this all sounds like common sense but figured it's better to 
spell it out now.

 

 

NEXT STEPS

After 2 weeks/whenever the discussion dies off I'll consolidate all the 
tickets, relevant comments and follow up with a summary, where we can 
discuss/nitpick issues and come up with a final list to go ahead with.

 

On a side note, in conjunction with this effort we'll obviously have to do 
something about validation and testing. I'll keep that out of this email for 
now, but there will be a follow up so that those of us willing to help 
validate/test trunk can avoid duplicating effort.

 

REVIEW

This is the list of "huge/breaking" tickets that got mentioned in the last 
roadmap discussion and their statuses. This is not terribly important but just 
so we can keep in mind what we previously talked about. I think we leave it up 
to the relevant contributors to decide whether they want to get the still open 
tickets into 4.0.

 

CASSANDRA-9425 Immutable node-local schema 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9425>  - Committed

CASSANDRA-10699 Strongly consistent schema alterations 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10699>  - Open, no discussion 
in quite some time.

CASSANDRA-12229 NIO streaming 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12229>  - Committed
CASSANDRA-8457 NIO messaging 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8457>  - Committed
CASSANDRA-12345 Gossip 2.0 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12345>  - Open, no sign of any 
action. 
CASSANDRA-9754 Make index info heap friendly for large CQL partitions 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9754>  - In progress but no 
update in a long time.
CASSANDRA-11559 enhanced node representation 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11559>  - Open, no change 
since early 2016.
CASSANDRA-6246 epaxos <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6246>  - 
In progress but no update since Feb 2017.
CASSANDRA-7544 storage port configurable per node 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7544>  - Committed
CASSANDRA-11115 remove thrift support 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11115>  - Committed

CASSANDRA-10857 dropping compact storage 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10857>  - Committed

 

To start us off...

And here are my lists to get us started. 

1.

CASSANDRA-8460 - Tiered/Cold storage for TWCS 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8460> 

 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12783> CASSANDRA-12783 - 
Batchlog redesign

CASSANDRA-11559 - Enchance node representation 
<https://issuesapache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11559> 

    CASSANDRA-12344 - Forward writes to replacement node with same address 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12344> 

CASSANDRA-8119 - More expressive Consistency Levels 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8119> 

CASSANDRA-14210 - Optimise SSTables upgrade task scheduling 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14210> 

CASSANDRA-10540 - RangeAwareCompaction 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10540> 

 

 

2:

CASSANDRA-10726 - Read repair inserts should not be blocking 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10726> 

CASSANDRA-9754 - Make index info heap friendly for large CQL partitions 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9754> 

CASSANDRA-12294 - LDAP auth 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12294> 

CASSANDRA-12151 - Audit logging 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12151> 

CASSANDRA-10495 - Fix streaming with vnodes 
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10495> 

 

Also, here's some handy JQL to start you off:

project = CASSANDRA AND fixVersion in (4.x, 4.0) AND issue in watchedIssues() 
AND status != Resolved

 

 

 

-- 

Ben Bromhead

CTO | Instaclustr <https://www.instaclustr.com/> 

+1 650 284 9692

Reliability at Scale

Cassandra, Spark, Elasticsearch on AWS, Azure, GCP and Softlayer

Reply via email to