I concur with Sylvain. On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:42 AM, 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). > > > > It has been my understanding that we took a more human approach to release > decisions than strictly and blindly adhering to the Apache written voting > rules. There has been many votes that has been re-rolled even though they > had had more than 3 binding vote already when a problem was detected, and > it never took an official PMC vote to do so, nor did we ever officially > waited on the cast votes to be officially reverted. > > I'm also sad that knowing that there is a bug that breaks in-flight queries > during upgrade *and* the fact the vast majority of our upgrade tests are > failing is not _obviously_ enough to hold a release, without the need for > further considerations. This speaks imo poorly of the PMC attachment to > release quality. > > But you are correct on the technicality of vote counting and their official > consequences according to the written rules ... > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >