Sorry (: Only see yours, Dave’s, and mine in my client. Apparently I’ve trashed the email chain at some point.
-- AY On 26 July 2016 at 23:48:49, Brandon Williams (dri...@gmail.com) wrote: Small nit: there are currently 5 binding +1 and 1 binding -1, (or 2, with Jonathan.) On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko <alek...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > >>> > >> > > > > > > > >
