> > 2) Alternatively, it's been 3 years, 4 months, 13 days since the release of > 3.10.0 (the last time we added new features to the DB) >
We did tick-tock, pushing feature releases too quickly, and without supporting them for long enough to get stable. And then we've done "a la no feature releases" for over 3 years. It feels like the bar went from too low to too high. I understand the importance of CASSANDRA-15299. But it hasn't had any comments in 12 twelve days, and in this stage of the feature freeze, with so few alpha bugs remaining, that's a long time. Sam, can you speak to its eta? > 4) If we plan on releasing 4.1 six months after the release of 4.0 (i.e. > calender scope vs. feature scope - not yet agreed upon but an option), I like this. I think it's worth appreciating the different perspectives of this community: those involved with private clusters that don't rely on official releases, versus those involved with the public and other people's clusters. The latter group needs those official releases much more, but this also ties into putting those users more in focus and figuring out where the bar best sits. This isn't meant to divide, we all care and voice for the user, but just to utilise the different strengths brought to the table. > If we want 4.0.0 out faster, the biggest gains would be to get the test plans written up and get more people working on automated testing. Yes, 110%. Though, as long as this continues to improve, as it has, does it need to be a blocker on 4.0?
