Be very careful, there is a serious bug about AND/OR semantics, not solved yet and not going to be solved any soon: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12674
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Jeff Jirsa <jeff.ji...@crowdstrike.com> wrote: > > We’ll be voting in the very near future on timing of major releases and > release strategy. 4.0 won’t happen until that vote takes place. > > But since you asked, I have ONE tick/tock (3.9) cluster being qualified > for production because it needs SASI. > > - Jeff > > On 11/17/16, 9:59 AM, "Jonathan Haddad" <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > > >I think it might be worth considering adopting the release strategy before > >4.0 release. Are any PMC members putting tick tock in prod? Does anyone > >even trust it? What's the downside of changing the release cycle > >independently from 4.0? > > > >On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM Jason Brown <jasedbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >Jason, > > > >That's a separate topic, but we will have a different vote on how the > >branching/release strategy should be for the future. > > > >On Thursday, November 17, 2016, jason zhao yang < > zhaoyangsingap...@gmail.com > >> > >wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> Will we still use tick-tock release for 4.x and 4.0.x ? > >> > >> Stefan Podkowinski <spo...@gmail.com <javascript:;>>于2016年11月16日周三 > >> 下午4:52写道： > >> > >> > From my understanding, this will also effect EOL dates of other > >branches. > >> > > >> > "We will maintain the 2.2 stability series until 4.0 is released, and > >3.0 > >> > for six months after that.". > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com > >> <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Agreed. As long as we have a goal I don't see why we have to adhere > to > >> > > arbitrary date for 4.0. > >> > > > >> > > On Nov 16, 2016 1:45 PM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" <alek...@datastax.com > >> <javascript:;>> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > I’ll comment on the broader issue, but right now I want to > elaborate > >> on > >> > > > 3.11/January/arbitrary cutoff date. > >> > > > > >> > > > Doesn’t matter what the original plan was. We should continue with > >> 3.X > >> > > > until all the 4.0 blockers have been > >> > > > committed - and there are quite a few of them remaining yet. > >> > > > > >> > > > So given all the holidays, and the tickets remaining, I’ll > >personally > >> > be > >> > > > surprised if 4.0 comes out before > >> > > > February/March and 3.13/3.14. Nor do I think it’s an issue. > >> > > > > >> > > > — > >> > > > AY > >> > > > > >> > > > On 16 November 2016 at 00:39:03, Mick Semb Wever ( > >> > m...@thelastpickle.com <javascript:;> > >> > > ) > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > On 4 November 2016 at 13:47, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com > >> <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Specifically, this should be "new stuff that could/will break > >> things" > >> > > > > given we are upping > >> > > > > the major version. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > How does this co-ordinate with the tick-tock versioning¹ leading > up > >> to > >> > > the > >> > > > 4.0 release? > >> > > > > >> > > > To just stop tick-tock and then say yeehaa let's jam in all the > >> > breaking > >> > > > changes we really want seems to be throwing away some of the > learnt > >> > > wisdom, > >> > > > and not doing a very sane transition from tick-tock to > >> > > > features/testing/stable². I really hope all this is done in a way > >> that > >> > > > continues us down the path towards a stable-master. > >> > > > > >> > > > For example, are we fixing the release of 4.0 to November? or > >> > continuing > >> > > > tick-tocks until we complete the 4.0 roadmap? or starting the > >> > > > features/testing/stable branching approach with 3.11? > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Background: > >> > > > ¹) Sylvain wrote in an earlier thread titled "A Home for 4.0" > >> > > > > >> > > > > And as 4.0 was initially supposed to come after 3.11, which is > >> > coming, > >> > > > it's probably time to have a home for those tickets. > >> > > > > >> > > > ²) The new versioning scheme slated for 4.0, per the "Proposal - > >> 3.5.1" > >> > > > thread > >> > > > > >> > > > > three branch plan with “features”, “testing”, and “stable” > >starting > >> > > with > >> > > > 4.0? > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Mick > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
