> So in the context of this thread, if I want to try out SAI for example, I don't care as much about consistency edge cases around coordinators or replicas or read repair.
That would apply to 19018, not 19011, which is a critical functionality issue. On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:49 PM Jeremy Hanna <jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com> wrote: > I want to just follow up with functional versus production-worthy. If I'm > a user interested in C* 5 and want to try it out as betas come out, I'm > looking more for something functional and not perfect. So in the context > of this thread, if I want to try out SAI for example, I don't care as much > about consistency edge cases around coordinators or replicas or read > repair. I care a lot about that for a RC or GA release but doing POCs with > betas that have known edge case issues like that is fine IMO. > > I know this is likely a moot point for this release since the fixes are > almost in, but I think just publishing beta 1 and then a follow up beta 2 > with those fixes would be fine in that context, if I understood the bugs > correctly. > > On Nov 29, 2023, at 12:15 PM, Aaron Ploetz <aaronplo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Even though my opinion doesn't really count here, I do feel compelled to > mention that: > > - No one expects a "beta" release to be perfect, but it does signal that > it is "close" to being ready. > - An "alpha" release is in fact a LOT scarier than a "beta" release. > > From a user perspective, if I was coaching dev teams on selecting a build > based on newly available features, I would help them build up a dev/stage > cluster based on a beta (and make the "beta" part very clear to them). > However an alpha version just doesn't convey the same level of confidence. > When I test out an "alpha" of anything, I fully expect some things to just > be broken. > > As for cutting a beta for the Summit; it makes sense that we'd want to get > some things fixed up before that. But it would also be great to be at the > point where we have a beta ready for folks to take a look at. We absolutely > could tell everyone to download the alpha and give it a spin. But more > people will be likely to do that for a beta than for an alpha. > > Take that however you will. > > Thanks, > > Aaron > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 9:54 AM Aleksey Yeshchenko <alek...@apple.com> > wrote: > >> -1 on cutting a beta1 in this state. An alpha2 would be acceptable now, >> but I’m not sure there is significant value to be had from it. Merge the >> fixes for outstanding issues listed above, then cut beta1. >> >> With TCM and Accord pushed into 5.1, SAI is the headliner user-visible >> feature. It is what we want users to test. If we are to drive more people >> to test SAI, we should resolve the issues that we ourselves know of first. >> Respect our users’ time and effort - don’t make them bump into known bugs. >> >> P.S. I don’t believe that ‘alpha' vs. ‘beta' really makes a significant >> difference to people’s willingness to try out the build. For most folks >> both feel too raw to play with, and most of the rest would be equally >> adventurous enough for an alpha *or* a beta. This is just my gut feeling >> vs. your gut feeling, in absence of hard data. >> >> On 28 Nov 2023, at 21:17, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> So then cutting an alpha2 is possible. >>> >> >> >> Possible, but still leaves alpha1 as our mitigation plan and alpha2 as >> our best plan. Doesn't seem worth it IMHO. >> >> >> >
