Sorry, but I’m counting 3 binding +1s and 1 binding -1 (2, if you interpret Jonathan’s emails as such).
Thus, if you were to do close the vote now, the vote is passing with the binding majority, and the required minimum # of +1s gained. I also don’t see the PMC consensus on ‘August 3.8 release target’. As such, the vote is now reopened for further discussion, and to allow PMC to change their votes if they feel like it (I, for one, have just returned, and need to reevaluate 12236 in light of new comments). -- AY On 25 July 2016 at 15:46:40, Michael Shuler (mshu...@apache.org) wrote: Thanks for the clarity, Jonathan. I agree that an August 3.8 release target sounds like the most reasonable option, at this point in time. With Sylvain's binding -1, this vote has failed. -- Kind regards, Michael Shuler On 07/21/2016 05:33 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > I feel like the calendar is relevant though because if we delay 3.8 more > we're looking at a week, maybe 10 days before 3.9 is scheduled. Which > doesn't give us much time for the stabilizing we're supposed to do in 3.9. > > All in all I think I agree that releasing 3.8 in August is less confusing > than skipping it entirely. And I don't like the idea of ignoring a whole > bunch of test failures and hoping they don't mean anything, because we just > had that thread about getting more rigorous about tests, not less. > > So I would recommend we go ahead and fix this before releasing, and to > avoid a super compressed 3.9 window either retarget 3.8 for August, or 3.9 > for September. > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko <alek...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> What we’d usually do is revert the offending ticket and push it to the >> next release, if this indeed were significant enough. >> >> So option 4 would be to revert CDC fast (painful) and ship. >> Option 5 would be to quickly fix the issue, retag, and revote, with 3.9 >> still following up on schedule. >> Option 6 would be to ignore the calendar entirely. Fix or revert the issue >> eventually, and release 3.8 then. Have 3.9 and 3.0.9 out at whatever time >> we decide to, and go back to monthly cycles from there on. >> >> TBH I don’t think anybody is even going to notice, or care. So I’m fine >> with 1, 4, 5, 6, but not reverting my +1 so far. >> >> -- >> AY >> >> On 21 July 2016 at 14:46:17, Sylvain Lebresne (sylv...@datastax.com) >> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I see the alternatives as: >>> >>> 1. Release this as 3.8 >>> 2. Skip 3.8 and release 3.9 next month on schedule >>> 3. Skip this month and release 3.8 next month instead >>> >> >> I've hopefully made it clear I don't really like 1. I'm totally fine with >> either 2 or 3 though (with a very very small preference for 3. because I >> suspect skipping a release might confuse a few users, but also knowing that >> 2. has the small advantage of keeping the 3.0.x and 3.x versions released >> more or less in lockstep). >> >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko <alek...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I still think the issue is minor enough, and with 3.8 being extremely >>>> delayed, and being a non-odd release, at that, we’d be better off just >>>> pushing it. >>>> >>>> Also, I know we’ve been easy on -1s when voting on releases, but I want >>> to >>>> remind people in general that release votes can not be vetoed and only >>>> require a majority of binding votes, >>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes >>>> >>>> -- >>>> AY >>>> >>>> On 21 July 2016 at 08:57:22, Sylvain Lebresne (sylv...@datastax.com) >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Sorry but I'm (binding) -1 on this because of >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12236. >>>> >>>> I disagree that knowingly releasing a version that will temporarily >> break >>>> in-flight queries during upgrade, even if it's for a very short >>> time-frame >>>> until re-connection, is ok. I'll note in particular that in the test >>>> report, there is 74! failures in the upgrade tests (for reference the >> 3.7 >>>> test report had only 2 upgrade tests failure both with open tickets). >>> Given >>>> that we have a known problem during upgrade, I don't really buy the "We >>> are >>>> assuming these are due to a recent downsize in instance size that these >>>> tests run on" and that suggest to me the problem is not too minor. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Dave Brosius < >> dbros...@mebigfatguy.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 07/20/2016 05:48 PM, Michael Shuler wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.8. >>>>>> >>>>>> sha1: c3ded0551f538f7845602b27d53240cd8129265c >>>>>> Git: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.8-tentative >> >>>>>> Artifacts: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1123/org/apache/cassandra/apache-cassandra/3.8/ >> >>>>>> Staging repository: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1123/ >>>>>> >>>>>> The debian packages are available here: >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~mshuler/ >>>>>> >>>>>> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). >>>>>> >>>>>> [1]: http://goo.gl/oGNH0i (CHANGES.txt) >>>>>> [2]: http://goo.gl/KjMtUn (NEWS.txt) >>>>>> [3]: https://goo.gl/TxVLKo (3.8 Test Summary) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jonathan Ellis >>> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra >>> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com >>> @spyced >>> >> > > >
