Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Alex Petrov]

We were able to narrow it down, and it seems that both issues have been 
introduced by [1] (both tests pass without this commit). There is a preliminary 
fix, and we're working on a minimal repro. Please track [2] for more 
information and latest updates.

[1] https://github.com/apache/cassandra/commit/b7e1e44a90
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18932


On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, at 7:52 PM, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> 
> Please mark such bugs with fixVersion 5.0-beta
> 
> If there are no more tickets that need API changes (i.e. those that should be 
> marked fixVersion 5.0-alpha) this then indicates we do not need a 5.0-alpha3 
> release and can focus towards 5.0-beta1 (regardless of having blockers open 
> to it).
> 
> Appreciate the attention 18993 is getting – we do have a shortlist of beta 
> blockers that we gotta prioritise !
> 
> 
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 18:33, Benedict  wrote:
>> 
>> Yep, data loss bugs are not any old bug. I’m concretely -1 (binding) 
>> releasing a beta with one that’s either under investigation or confirmed.
>> 
>> As Scott says, hopefully it won’t come to that - the joy of deterministic 
>> testing is this should be straightforward to triage.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 4 Nov 2023, at 17:30, C. Scott Andreas  wrote:
>>> I’d happily be the first to vote -1(nb) on a release containing a known 
>>> and reproducible bug that can result in data loss or an incorrect response 
>>> to a query. And I certainly wouldn’t run it.
>>> 
>>> Since we have a programmatic repro within just a few seconds, this should 
>>> not take long to root-cause.
>>> 
>>> On Friday, Alex worked to get this reproducing on a Cassandra branch rather 
>>> than via unstaged changes. We should have a published / shareable example 
>>> with details near the beginning of the week.
>>> 
>>> – Scott
>>> 
 On Nov 4, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Josh McKenzie  wrote:
 
> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 
> (assuming it is a bug).
 Before a beta? I could see that for rc or GA definitely, but having a 
 known (especially non-regressive) data loss bug in a beta seems like it's 
 compatible with the guarantees we're providing for it: 
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle
 
> This release is recommended for test/QA clusters where short(order of 
> minutes) downtime during upgrades is not an issue
 
 
 On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:
> Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a 
> priority in any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test 
> mentioned on the ticket.
> 
> Thanks to Alex for his work on harry!
> 
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict  wrote:
>> Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 
>> 5.0, but either way we should not cut a release with such a serious 
>> potential known issue.
>> 
>> > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan  
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as 
>> > well?  So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and 
>> > get a new 4.1.x released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary 
>> > issue to me if we have a “data not being returned” issue in an 
>> > existing release?
>> >
>> >> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 
>> >> 18993 (assuming it is a bug).
>> >>
>>  On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 
>> 
>>  With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
>>  default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
>>  objections to this ?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1
>> >>>
>> >>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest 
>> >>> we
>> >>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
>> >>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec.
>> >>>
>> >>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
>> >>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if 
>> >>> nothing
>> >>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
>> >>> make it happen.
>> >>
 

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Benjamin Lerer]

Sorry for that. It should be fixed for everybody now.

Le lun. 6 nov. 2023 à 11:43, Miklosovic, Stefan via dev <
dev@cassandra.apache.org> a écrit :

> I can't view it either.
>
> 
> From: guo Maxwell 
> Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:40
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra
> 5.0-alpha2)
>
> NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or
> open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
>
>
>
> Do I need permission to view this link? When I open it, an error appears,
> saying “It may have been deleted or you don't have permission to view it.”
>
> Benjamin Lerer mailto:b.le...@gmail.com>>
> 于2023年11月6日周一 18:34写道：
> I created a Dashboard to track the progress and remaining tasks for 5.0:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=593<
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fsecure%2FRapidBoard.jspa%3FrapidView%3D593&data=05%7C01%7CStefan.Miklosovic%40netapp.com%7C83db318dc59d4ace3ded08dbdeb4d68b%7C4b0911a0929b4715944bc03745165b3a%7C0%7C0%7C638348640501244920%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aDmFrtaDdB0F4kEG%2BHbBiF52VHTvrEdIwL2RUQXX%2FbY%3D&reserved=0
> >
> Everybody logged in should have access. Ping me if it is not the case.
>
> Le sam. 4 nov. 2023 à 19:54, Mick Semb Wever  m...@apache.org>> a écrit :
>
> Please mark such bugs with fixVersion 5.0-beta
>
> If there are no more tickets that need API changes (i.e. those that should
> be marked fixVersion 5.0-alpha) this then indicates we do not need a
> 5.0-alpha3 release and can focus towards 5.0-beta1 (regardless of having
> blockers open to it).
>
> Appreciate the attention 18993 is getting – we do have a shortlist of beta
> blockers that we gotta prioritise !
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 18:33, Benedict  bened...@apache.org>> wrote:
> Yep, data loss bugs are not any old bug. I’m concretely -1 (binding)
> releasing a beta with one that’s either under investigation or confirmed.
>
> As Scott says, hopefully it won’t come to that - the joy of deterministic
> testing is this should be straightforward to triage.
>
> On 4 Nov 2023, at 17:30, C. Scott Andreas  sc...@paradoxica.net>> wrote:
>
> I’d happily be the first to vote -1(nb) on a release containing a known
> and reproducible bug that can result in data loss or an incorrect response
> to a query. And I certainly wouldn’t run it.
>
> Since we have a programmatic repro within just a few seconds, this should
> not take long to root-cause.
>
> On Friday, Alex worked to get this reproducing on a Cassandra branch
> rather than via unstaged changes. We should have a published / shareable
> example with details near the beginning of the week.
>
> – Scott
>
> On Nov 4, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Josh McKenzie  jmcken...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> 
> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993
> (assuming it is a bug).
> Before a beta? I could see that for rc or GA definitely, but having a
> known (especially non-regressive) data loss bug in a beta seems like it's
> compatible with the guarantees we're providing for it:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle<
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcwiki.apache.org%2Fconfluence%2Fdisplay%2FCASSANDRA%2FRelease%2BLifecycle&data=05%7C01%7CStefan.Miklosovic%40netapp.com%7C83db318dc59d4ace3ded08dbdeb4d68b%7C4b0911a0929b4715944bc03745165b3a%7C0%7C0%7C638348640501244920%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lfB59qRc64YbPS9vGECYUYm4j2YHtwMQNe%2FiqafSQTk%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
> This release is recommended for test/QA clusters where short(order of
> minutes) downtime during upgrades is not an issue
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:
> Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a
> priority in any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned
> on the ticket.
>
> Thanks to Alex for his work on harry!
>
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict  bened...@apache.org>> wrote:
> Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0,
> but either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential
> known issue.
>
> > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan  jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like 18993 is not a regres

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Miklosovic, Stefan via dev]

The link is fixed. Thanks!


From: Miklosovic, Stefan 
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:42
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

I can't view it either.


From: guo Maxwell 
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:40
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open 
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.



Do I need permission to view this link? When I open it, an error appears, 
saying “It may have been deleted or you don't have permission to view it.”

Benjamin Lerer mailto:b.le...@gmail.com>> 于2023年11月6日周一 
18:34写道：
I created a Dashboard to track the progress and remaining tasks for 5.0: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=593<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fsecure%2FRapidBoard.jspa%3FrapidView%3D593&data=05%7C01%7CStefan.Miklosovic%40netapp.com%7C83db318dc59d4ace3ded08dbdeb4d68b%7C4b0911a0929b4715944bc03745165b3a%7C0%7C0%7C638348640501244920%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aDmFrtaDdB0F4kEG%2BHbBiF52VHTvrEdIwL2RUQXX%2FbY%3D&reserved=0>
Everybody logged in should have access. Ping me if it is not the case.

Le sam. 4 nov. 2023 à 19:54, Mick Semb Wever 
mailto:m...@apache.org>> a écrit :

Please mark such bugs with fixVersion 5.0-beta

If there are no more tickets that need API changes (i.e. those that should be 
marked fixVersion 5.0-alpha) this then indicates we do not need a 5.0-alpha3 
release and can focus towards 5.0-beta1 (regardless of having blockers open to 
it).

Appreciate the attention 18993 is getting – we do have a shortlist of beta 
blockers that we gotta prioritise !


On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 18:33, Benedict 
mailto:bened...@apache.org>> wrote:
Yep, data loss bugs are not any old bug. I’m concretely -1 (binding) releasing 
a beta with one that’s either under investigation or confirmed.

As Scott says, hopefully it won’t come to that - the joy of deterministic 
testing is this should be straightforward to triage.

On 4 Nov 2023, at 17:30, C. Scott Andreas 
mailto:sc...@paradoxica.net>> wrote:

I’d happily be the first to vote -1(nb) on a release containing a known and 
reproducible bug that can result in data loss or an incorrect response to a 
query. And I certainly wouldn’t run it.

Since we have a programmatic repro within just a few seconds, this should not 
take long to root-cause.

On Friday, Alex worked to get this reproducing on a Cassandra branch rather 
than via unstaged changes. We should have a published / shareable example with 
details near the beginning of the week.

– Scott

On Nov 4, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Josh McKenzie 
mailto:jmcken...@apache.org>> wrote:


I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 
(assuming it is a bug).
Before a beta? I could see that for rc or GA definitely, but having a known 
(especially non-regressive) data loss bug in a beta seems like it's compatible 
with the guarantees we're providing for it: 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcwiki.apache.org%2Fconfluence%2Fdisplay%2FCASSANDRA%2FRelease%2BLifecycle&data=05%7C01%7CStefan.Miklosovic%40netapp.com%7C83db318dc59d4ace3ded08dbdeb4d68b%7C4b0911a0929b4715944bc03745165b3a%7C0%7C0%7C638348640501244920%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lfB59qRc64YbPS9vGECYUYm4j2YHtwMQNe%2FiqafSQTk%3D&reserved=0>

This release is recommended for test/QA clusters where short(order of minutes) 
downtime during upgrades is not an issue


On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:
Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a priority in 
any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned on the ticket.

Thanks to Alex for his work on harry!

On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict 
mailto:bened...@apache.org>> wrote:
Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0, but 
either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential known 
issue.

> On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan 
> mailto:jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as well?  
> So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a new 4.1.x 
> released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if we have a 
> “data not being returned” issue in an existing release?
>
>> O

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Miklosovic, Stefan via dev]

I can't view it either.


From: guo Maxwell 
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:40
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open 
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.



Do I need permission to view this link? When I open it, an error appears, 
saying “It may have been deleted or you don't have permission to view it.”

Benjamin Lerer mailto:b.le...@gmail.com>> 于2023年11月6日周一 
18:34写道：
I created a Dashboard to track the progress and remaining tasks for 5.0: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=593<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fsecure%2FRapidBoard.jspa%3FrapidView%3D593&data=05%7C01%7CStefan.Miklosovic%40netapp.com%7C83db318dc59d4ace3ded08dbdeb4d68b%7C4b0911a0929b4715944bc03745165b3a%7C0%7C0%7C638348640501244920%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aDmFrtaDdB0F4kEG%2BHbBiF52VHTvrEdIwL2RUQXX%2FbY%3D&reserved=0>
Everybody logged in should have access. Ping me if it is not the case.

Le sam. 4 nov. 2023 à 19:54, Mick Semb Wever 
mailto:m...@apache.org>> a écrit :

Please mark such bugs with fixVersion 5.0-beta

If there are no more tickets that need API changes (i.e. those that should be 
marked fixVersion 5.0-alpha) this then indicates we do not need a 5.0-alpha3 
release and can focus towards 5.0-beta1 (regardless of having blockers open to 
it).

Appreciate the attention 18993 is getting – we do have a shortlist of beta 
blockers that we gotta prioritise !


On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 18:33, Benedict 
mailto:bened...@apache.org>> wrote:
Yep, data loss bugs are not any old bug. I’m concretely -1 (binding) releasing 
a beta with one that’s either under investigation or confirmed.

As Scott says, hopefully it won’t come to that - the joy of deterministic 
testing is this should be straightforward to triage.

On 4 Nov 2023, at 17:30, C. Scott Andreas 
mailto:sc...@paradoxica.net>> wrote:

I’d happily be the first to vote -1(nb) on a release containing a known and 
reproducible bug that can result in data loss or an incorrect response to a 
query. And I certainly wouldn’t run it.

Since we have a programmatic repro within just a few seconds, this should not 
take long to root-cause.

On Friday, Alex worked to get this reproducing on a Cassandra branch rather 
than via unstaged changes. We should have a published / shareable example with 
details near the beginning of the week.

– Scott

On Nov 4, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Josh McKenzie 
mailto:jmcken...@apache.org>> wrote:


I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 
(assuming it is a bug).
Before a beta? I could see that for rc or GA definitely, but having a known 
(especially non-regressive) data loss bug in a beta seems like it's compatible 
with the guarantees we're providing for it: 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcwiki.apache.org%2Fconfluence%2Fdisplay%2FCASSANDRA%2FRelease%2BLifecycle&data=05%7C01%7CStefan.Miklosovic%40netapp.com%7C83db318dc59d4ace3ded08dbdeb4d68b%7C4b0911a0929b4715944bc03745165b3a%7C0%7C0%7C638348640501244920%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lfB59qRc64YbPS9vGECYUYm4j2YHtwMQNe%2FiqafSQTk%3D&reserved=0>

This release is recommended for test/QA clusters where short(order of minutes) 
downtime during upgrades is not an issue


On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:
Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a priority in 
any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned on the ticket.

Thanks to Alex for his work on harry!

On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict 
mailto:bened...@apache.org>> wrote:
Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0, but 
either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential known 
issue.

> On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan 
> mailto:jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as well?  
> So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a new 4.1.x 
> released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if we have a 
> “data not being returned” issue in an existing release?
>
>> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict 
>> mailto:bened...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 
>> (assuming it is a bug).
>>
>>>>

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[guo Maxwell]

Do I need permission to view this link? When I open it, an error appears,
saying “It may have been deleted or you don't have permission to view it.”

Benjamin Lerer  于2023年11月6日周一 18:34写道：

> I created a Dashboard to track the progress and remaining tasks for 5.0:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=593
> Everybody logged in should have access. Ping me if it is not the case.
>
> Le sam. 4 nov. 2023 à 19:54, Mick Semb Wever  a écrit :
>
>>
>> Please mark such bugs with fixVersion 5.0-beta
>>
>> If there are no more tickets that need API changes (i.e. those that
>> should be marked fixVersion 5.0-alpha) this then indicates we do not need a
>> 5.0-alpha3 release and can focus towards 5.0-beta1 (regardless of having
>> blockers open to it).
>>
>> Appreciate the attention 18993 is getting – we do have a shortlist of
>> beta blockers that we gotta prioritise !
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 18:33, Benedict  wrote:
>>
>>> Yep, data loss bugs are not any old bug. I’m concretely -1 (binding)
>>> releasing a beta with one that’s either under investigation or confirmed.
>>>
>>> As Scott says, hopefully it won’t come to that - the joy of
>>> deterministic testing is this should be straightforward to triage.
>>>
>>> On 4 Nov 2023, at 17:30, C. Scott Andreas  wrote:
>>>
>>> I’d happily be the first to vote -1(nb) on a release containing a known
>>> and reproducible bug that can result in data loss or an incorrect response
>>> to a query. And I certainly wouldn’t run it.
>>>
>>> Since we have a programmatic repro within just a few seconds, this
>>> should not take long to root-cause.
>>>
>>> On Friday, Alex worked to get this reproducing on a Cassandra branch
>>> rather than via unstaged changes. We should have a published / shareable
>>> example with details near the beginning of the week.
>>>
>>> – Scott
>>>
>>> On Nov 4, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Josh McKenzie  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993
>>> (assuming it is a bug).
>>>
>>> Before a beta? I could see that for rc or GA definitely, but having a
>>> known (especially non-regressive) data loss bug in a beta seems like it's
>>> compatible with the guarantees we're providing for it:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle
>>>
>>> This release is recommended for test/QA clusters where short(order of
>>> minutes) downtime during upgrades is not an issue
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:
>>>
>>> Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a
>>> priority in any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned
>>> on the ticket.
>>>
>>> Thanks to Alex for his work on harry!
>>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict  wrote:
>>>
>>> Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in
>>> 5.0, but either way we should not cut a release with such a serious
>>> potential known issue.
>>>
>>> > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as
>>> well?  So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a
>>> new 4.1.x released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if
>>> we have a “data not being returned” issue in an existing release?
>>> >
>>> >> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed
>>> 18993 (assuming it is a bug).
>>> >>
>>>  On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> 
>>> 
>>>  With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
>>>  default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
>>>  objections to this ?
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1
>>> >>>
>>> >>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest
>>> we
>>> >>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
>>> >>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
>>> >>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if
>>> nothing
>>> >>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
>>> >>> make it happen.
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Benjamin Lerer]

I created a Dashboard to track the progress and remaining tasks for 5.0:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=593
Everybody logged in should have access. Ping me if it is not the case.

Le sam. 4 nov. 2023 à 19:54, Mick Semb Wever  a écrit :

>
> Please mark such bugs with fixVersion 5.0-beta
>
> If there are no more tickets that need API changes (i.e. those that should
> be marked fixVersion 5.0-alpha) this then indicates we do not need a
> 5.0-alpha3 release and can focus towards 5.0-beta1 (regardless of having
> blockers open to it).
>
> Appreciate the attention 18993 is getting – we do have a shortlist of
> beta blockers that we gotta prioritise !
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 18:33, Benedict  wrote:
>
>> Yep, data loss bugs are not any old bug. I’m concretely -1 (binding)
>> releasing a beta with one that’s either under investigation or confirmed.
>>
>> As Scott says, hopefully it won’t come to that - the joy of deterministic
>> testing is this should be straightforward to triage.
>>
>> On 4 Nov 2023, at 17:30, C. Scott Andreas  wrote:
>>
>> I’d happily be the first to vote -1(nb) on a release containing a known
>> and reproducible bug that can result in data loss or an incorrect response
>> to a query. And I certainly wouldn’t run it.
>>
>> Since we have a programmatic repro within just a few seconds, this should
>> not take long to root-cause.
>>
>> On Friday, Alex worked to get this reproducing on a Cassandra branch
>> rather than via unstaged changes. We should have a published / shareable
>> example with details near the beginning of the week.
>>
>> – Scott
>>
>> On Nov 4, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Josh McKenzie  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993
>> (assuming it is a bug).
>>
>> Before a beta? I could see that for rc or GA definitely, but having a
>> known (especially non-regressive) data loss bug in a beta seems like it's
>> compatible with the guarantees we're providing for it:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle
>>
>> This release is recommended for test/QA clusters where short(order of
>> minutes) downtime during upgrades is not an issue
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:
>>
>> Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a
>> priority in any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned
>> on the ticket.
>>
>> Thanks to Alex for his work on harry!
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict  wrote:
>>
>> Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in
>> 5.0, but either way we should not cut a release with such a serious
>> potential known issue.
>>
>> > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as
>> well?  So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a
>> new 4.1.x released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if
>> we have a “data not being returned” issue in an existing release?
>> >
>> >> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed
>> 18993 (assuming it is a bug).
>> >>
>>  On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 
>> 
>>  With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
>>  default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
>>  objections to this ?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1
>> >>>
>> >>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we
>> >>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
>> >>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec.
>> >>>
>> >>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
>> >>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing
>> >>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
>> >>> make it happen.
>> >>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Paulo Motta]

Nice, thanks for the quick fix! Checked and working now.

On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 21:11 Mick Semb Wever  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 at 00:49, Paulo Motta  wrote:
>
>> >  With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
>> default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
>> objections to this ?
>>
>> It looks like the switch of latest to 5.0 broken some top search links
>> (returns 404 to me):
>>
>> [1] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+configuration
>> [2] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+getting+started
>> [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+install
>> [3] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+jdk
>>
>> Can/should we rollback while we add redirects to the old indexed links?
>>
>
>
> The nav and structure of the docs in 5.0 got a redesign.
>
> I've put in a quick hack that any 404 on any /doc/latest/ page will
> redirect to the page under /doc/stable/
> Appears to be working.  Thanks for spotting this Paulo !
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Mick Semb Wever]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 at 00:49, Paulo Motta  wrote:

> >  With the publication of this release I would like to switch the default
> 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any objections to
> this ?
>
> It looks like the switch of latest to 5.0 broken some top search links
> (returns 404 to me):
>
> [1] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+configuration
> [2] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+getting+started
> [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+install
> [3] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+jdk
>
> Can/should we rollback while we add redirects to the old indexed links?
>


The nav and structure of the docs in 5.0 got a redesign.

I've put in a quick hack that any 404 on any /doc/latest/ page will
redirect to the page under /doc/stable/
Appears to be working.  Thanks for spotting this Paulo !

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Paulo Motta]

>  With the publication of this release I would like to switch the default
'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any objections to
this ?

It looks like the switch of latest to 5.0 broken some top search links
(returns 404 to me):

[1] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+configuration
[2] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+getting+started
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+install
[3] - https://www.google.com/search?q=apache+cassandra+jdk

Can/should we rollback while we add redirects to the old indexed links?

On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 2:04 PM Ekaterina Dimitrova 
wrote:

>
>1. “No objections from me since these issues are mostly cosmetic, but
>it would be nice to clear these before the next alpha/beta. I will create a
>ticket for the unknown module warning later if nobody beats me to it.”
>
>
>
>1.
>
>
>1. CASSANDRA-19001
> opened for the
>issue to be checked. Until we have tested/investigated whether the features
>that are supposed to use those modules experience any issues, this is an
>isolated problem that might turn out to be a cosmetic one. So far, we know
>the associated features and the JDK where the warnings are seen.
>
>
> You are right, Paulo, I meant CASSANDRA-18711 is the one that will take
> care of the Security Manager deprecation in the future. I just moved it out
> of triage.
>
> Best regards,
> Ekaterina
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 7:15, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>
>> > As this is alpha release - can we open a ticket to be resolved in the
>>> next alpha/beta? It is up to PMC to decide, of course.
>>>
>>> No objections from me since these issues are mostly cosmetic, but it
>>> would be nice to clear these before the next alpha/beta. I will create a
>>> ticket for the unknown module warning later if nobody beats me to it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I agree.  When these tickets are created please add fixVersion '5.0-beta'
>> to indicate such.
>>
>>
>>

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Mick Semb Wever]

Please mark such bugs with fixVersion 5.0-beta

If there are no more tickets that need API changes (i.e. those that should
be marked fixVersion 5.0-alpha) this then indicates we do not need a
5.0-alpha3 release and can focus towards 5.0-beta1 (regardless of having
blockers open to it).

Appreciate the attention 18993 is getting – we do have a shortlist of beta
blockers that we gotta prioritise !


On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 18:33, Benedict  wrote:

> Yep, data loss bugs are not any old bug. I’m concretely -1 (binding)
> releasing a beta with one that’s either under investigation or confirmed.
>
> As Scott says, hopefully it won’t come to that - the joy of deterministic
> testing is this should be straightforward to triage.
>
> On 4 Nov 2023, at 17:30, C. Scott Andreas  wrote:
>
> I’d happily be the first to vote -1(nb) on a release containing a known
> and reproducible bug that can result in data loss or an incorrect response
> to a query. And I certainly wouldn’t run it.
>
> Since we have a programmatic repro within just a few seconds, this should
> not take long to root-cause.
>
> On Friday, Alex worked to get this reproducing on a Cassandra branch
> rather than via unstaged changes. We should have a published / shareable
> example with details near the beginning of the week.
>
> – Scott
>
> On Nov 4, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Josh McKenzie  wrote:
>
> 
>
> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993
> (assuming it is a bug).
>
> Before a beta? I could see that for rc or GA definitely, but having a
> known (especially non-regressive) data loss bug in a beta seems like it's
> compatible with the guarantees we're providing for it:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle
>
> This release is recommended for test/QA clusters where short(order of
> minutes) downtime during upgrades is not an issue
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:
>
> Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a
> priority in any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned
> on the ticket.
>
> Thanks to Alex for his work on harry!
>
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict  wrote:
>
> Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0,
> but either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential
> known issue.
>
> > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan  wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as
> well?  So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a
> new 4.1.x released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if
> we have a “data not being returned” issue in an existing release?
> >
> >> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict  wrote:
> >>
> >> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993
> (assuming it is a bug).
> >>
>  On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 
> 
>  With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
>  default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
>  objections to this ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1
> >>>
> >>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we
> >>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
> >>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec.
> >>>
> >>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
> >>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing
> >>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
> >>> make it happen.
> >>
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Ekaterina Dimitrova]

   1. “No objections from me since these issues are mostly cosmetic, but it
   would be nice to clear these before the next alpha/beta. I will create a
   ticket for the unknown module warning later if nobody beats me to it.”



   1.


   1. CASSANDRA-19001
    opened for the
   issue to be checked. Until we have tested/investigated whether the features
   that are supposed to use those modules experience any issues, this is an
   isolated problem that might turn out to be a cosmetic one. So far, we know
   the associated features and the JDK where the warnings are seen.


You are right, Paulo, I meant CASSANDRA-18711 is the one that will take
care of the Security Manager deprecation in the future. I just moved it out
of triage.

Best regards,
Ekaterina


On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 7:15, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:

> > As this is alpha release - can we open a ticket to be resolved in the
>> next alpha/beta? It is up to PMC to decide, of course.
>>
>> No objections from me since these issues are mostly cosmetic, but it
>> would be nice to clear these before the next alpha/beta. I will create a
>> ticket for the unknown module warning later if nobody beats me to it.
>>
>
>
> I agree.  When these tickets are created please add fixVersion '5.0-beta'
> to indicate such.
>
>
>

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Benedict]

Yep, data loss bugs are not any old bug. I’m concretely -1 (binding) releasing a beta with one that’s either under investigation or confirmed.As Scott says, hopefully it won’t come to that - the joy of deterministic testing is this should be straightforward to triage.On 4 Nov 2023, at 17:30, C. Scott Andreas  wrote:I’d happily be the first to vote -1(nb) on a release containing a known and reproducible bug that can result in data loss or an incorrect response to a query. And I certainly wouldn’t run it.Since we have a programmatic repro within just a few seconds, this should not take long to root-cause.On Friday, Alex worked to get this reproducing on a Cassandra branch rather than via unstaged changes. We should have a published / shareable example with details near the beginning of the week.– ScottOn Nov 4, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Josh McKenzie  wrote:I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 (assuming it is a bug).Before a beta? I could see that for rc or GA definitely, but having a known (especially non-regressive) data loss bug in a beta seems like it's compatible with the guarantees we're providing for it: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+LifecycleThis release is recommended for test/QA clusters where short(order of minutes) downtime during upgrades is not an issueOn Sat, Nov 4, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a priority in any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned on the ticket.Thanks to Alex for his work on harry!On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict  wrote:Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0, but either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential known issue.  > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan  wrote: >  > Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as well?  So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a new 4.1.x released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if we have a “data not being returned” issue in an existing release? >  >> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict  wrote: >>  >> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 (assuming it is a bug). >>   On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote: >>>  >>>     With the publication of this release I would like to switch the  default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any  objections to this ? >>>  >>>  >>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1 >>>  >>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we >>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and >>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec. >>>  >>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually >>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing >>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to >>> make it happen. >>

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[C. Scott Andreas]

I’d happily be the first to vote -1(nb) on a release containing a known and reproducible bug that can result in data loss or an incorrect response to a query. And I certainly wouldn’t run it.Since we have a programmatic repro within just a few seconds, this should not take long to root-cause.On Friday, Alex worked to get this reproducing on a Cassandra branch rather than via unstaged changes. We should have a published / shareable example with details near the beginning of the week.– ScottOn Nov 4, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Josh McKenzie  wrote:I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 (assuming it is a bug).Before a beta? I could see that for rc or GA definitely, but having a known (especially non-regressive) data loss bug in a beta seems like it's compatible with the guarantees we're providing for it: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+LifecycleThis release is recommended for test/QA clusters where short(order of minutes) downtime during upgrades is not an issueOn Sat, Nov 4, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a priority in any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned on the ticket.Thanks to Alex for his work on harry!On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict  wrote:Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0, but either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential known issue.  > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan  wrote: >  > Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as well?  So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a new 4.1.x released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if we have a “data not being returned” issue in an existing release? >  >> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict  wrote: >>  >> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 (assuming it is a bug). >>   On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote: >>>  >>>     With the publication of this release I would like to switch the  default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any  objections to this ? >>>  >>>  >>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1 >>>  >>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we >>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and >>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec. >>>  >>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually >>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing >>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to >>> make it happen. >>

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Josh McKenzie]

> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 
> (assuming it is a bug).
Before a beta? I could see that for rc or GA definitely, but having a known 
(especially non-regressive) data loss bug in a beta seems like it's compatible 
with the guarantees we're providing for it: 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle

> This release is recommended for test/QA clusters where short(order of 
> minutes) downtime during upgrades is not an issue


On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:
> Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a priority 
> in any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned on the 
> ticket.
> 
> Thanks to Alex for his work on harry!
> 
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict  wrote:
>> Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0, 
>> but either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential 
>> known issue.
>> 
>> > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan  wrote:
>> > 
>> > Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as well? 
>> >  So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a new 
>> > 4.1.x released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if we 
>> > have a “data not being returned” issue in an existing release?
>> > 
>> >> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict  wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 
>> >> (assuming it is a bug).
>> >> 
>>  On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>>  
>>  With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
>>  default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
>>  objections to this ?
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1
>> >>> 
>> >>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we
>> >>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
>> >>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec.
>> >>> 
>> >>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
>> >>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing
>> >>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
>> >>> make it happen.
>> >>

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Ekaterina Dimitrova]

Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a
priority in any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned
on the ticket.

Thanks to Alex for his work on harry!

On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict  wrote:

> Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0,
> but either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential
> known issue.
>
> > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan  wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as
> well?  So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a
> new 4.1.x released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if
> we have a “data not being returned” issue in an existing release?
> >
> >> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict  wrote:
> >>
> >> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993
> (assuming it is a bug).
> >>
>  On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 
> 
>  With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
>  default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
>  objections to this ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1
> >>>
> >>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we
> >>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
> >>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec.
> >>>
> >>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
> >>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing
> >>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
> >>> make it happen.
> >>
>
>

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Benedict]

Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0, but 
either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential known 
issue.

> On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan  wrote:
> 
> Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as well?  
> So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a new 4.1.x 
> released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if we have a 
> “data not being returned” issue in an existing release?
> 
>> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict  wrote:
>> 
>> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 
>> (assuming it is a bug).
>> 
 On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
 
 With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
 default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
 objections to this ?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1
>>> 
>>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we
>>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
>>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec.
>>> 
>>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
>>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing
>>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
>>> make it happen.
>> 

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[J. D. Jordan]

Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as well?  So I 
would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a new 4.1.x 
released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if we have a 
“data not being returned” issue in an existing release?

> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict  wrote:
> 
> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 
> (assuming it is a bug).
> 
>> On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
>>> default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
>>> objections to this ?
>> 
>> 
>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1
>> 
>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we
>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec.
>> 
>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing
>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
>> make it happen.
> 

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Brandon Williams]

I agree and just now opened it for 5.0-beta (among others.)

Kind Regards,
Brandon

On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 11:08 AM Benedict  wrote:
>
> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 
> (assuming it is a bug).
>
> > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
> >
> > 
> >>
> >> With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
> >> default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
> >> objections to this ?
> >
> >
> > I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1
> >
> > With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we
> > work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
> > 5.0-rc1 first week Dec.
> >
> > I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
> > commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing
> > sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
> > make it happen.
>

Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Benedict]

I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 
(assuming it is a bug).

> On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
>> default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
>> objections to this ?
> 
> 
> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1
> 
> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we
> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec.
> 
> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing
> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
> make it happen.

Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Mick Semb Wever]

> With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
> default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
> objections to this ?


I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1

With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we
work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and
5.0-rc1 first week Dec.

I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually
commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing
sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to
make it happen.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Mick Semb Wever]

>
> > As this is alpha release - can we open a ticket to be resolved in the
> next alpha/beta? It is up to PMC to decide, of course.
>
> No objections from me since these issues are mostly cosmetic, but it would
> be nice to clear these before the next alpha/beta. I will create a ticket
> for the unknown module warning later if nobody beats me to it.
>


I agree.  When these tickets are created please add fixVersion '5.0-beta'
to indicate such.

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Mick Semb Wever]

> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who
> has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are
> considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding
> +1s and no -1's.



The vote passes with 6 +1s (three binding).


With the publication of this release I would like to switch the
default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any
objections to this ?

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Paulo Motta]

Thanks Ekaterina! I think the security manager ticket is CASSANDRA-18711
(correct me if I’m wrong) - sorry missed this in my previous search.

> As this is alpha release - can we open a ticket to be resolved in the
next alpha/beta? It is up to PMC to decide, of course.

No objections from me since these issues are mostly cosmetic, but it would
be nice to clear these before the next alpha/beta. I will create a ticket
for the unknown module warning later if nobody beats me to it.

On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 at 21:17 Ekaterina Dimitrova 
wrote:

> I am sorry, I totally forgot to address your other concern, Paulo. The
> security manager is marked for deprecation in JDK 17. So this warning is to
> stress to people they need to take care of a replacement, sooner than
> later. I believe we have somewhere an unassigned ticket in Open status to
> address this topic.
>
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 at 21:07, Ekaterina Dimitrova 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Paulo,
>>
>> Thank you for testing and for raising the issue!
>> I can confirm I do not use the same JDK as you, and I did not see any
>> warnings on my machine on startup or when calling nodetool commands.
>>
>> I believe on a quick check that jdk.attach was needed for nodetool sjk.
>> (It was mentioned on CASSANDRA-16895 at least)
>> About jdk.compiler - it was added as per this recommendation for
>> chronicle
>> https://chronicle.software/chronicle-support-java-17/
>>
>> I do not believe we test with the mentioned JDK in CI, so additional
>> testing will be required to figure out things better.
>>
>> As this is alpha release - can we open a ticket to be resolved in the
>> next alpha/beta? It is up to PMC to decide, of course. Also, we need a bit
>> more investigation here. I can try to take a look tomorrow in more
>> detail if no one beats me to that.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ekaterina
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 at 20:01, Paulo Motta  wrote:
>>
>>> Clarification:
>>> - When running nodetool only the "Unknown module" warnings show up. All
>>> warnings show up during startup.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 7:58 PM Paulo Motta  wrote:
>>>
 Launched a tarball-based 5.0-alpha2 container on top of
 "eclipse-temurin:17-jre-focal" and the server starts up fine, can run
 nodetool and cqlsh.

 I got these seemingly harmless JDK17 warnings during startup and when
 running nodetool (no warnings on JDK11):

 WARNING: Unknown module: jdk.attach specified to --add-exports
 WARNING: Unknown module: jdk.compiler specified to --add-exports
 WARNING: Unknown module: jdk.compiler specified to --add-opens
 WARNING: A terminally deprecated method in java.lang.System has been
 called
 WARNING: System::setSecurityManager has been called by
 org.apache.cassandra.security.ThreadAwareSecurityManager
 (file:/opt/cassandra/lib/apache-cassandra-5.0-alpha2-SNAPSHOT.jar)
 WARNING: Please consider reporting this to the maintainers of
 org.apache.cassandra.security.ThreadAwareSecurityManager
 WARNING: System::setSecurityManager will be removed in a future release

 Anybody knows if these warnings are legit/expected ? We can create
 follow-up tickets if needed.

 $ java --version
 openjdk 17.0.9 2023-10-17
 OpenJDK Runtime Environment Temurin-17.0.9+9 (build 17.0.9+9)
 OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM Temurin-17.0.9+9 (build 17.0.9+9, mixed mode,
 sharing)

 On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 6:13 PM Jonathan Ellis 
 wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 3:47 PM Mick Semb Wever 
> wrote:
>
>> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 5.0-alpha2 for release.
>>
>> DISCLAIMER, this alpha release does not contain the features:
>> Transactional Cluster Metadata (CEP-21) and Accord Transactions
>> (CEP-15).  These features are under discussion to be pushed to a
>> 5.1-alpha1 release, with an eta still this year.
>>
>> This release does contain Vector Similarity Search (CEP-30).
>>
>> Please also note that this is an alpha release and what that means,
>> further info at
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle
>>
>> sha1: ea76d148c374198fede6978422895668857a927f
>> Git: https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/5.0-alpha2-tentative
>> Maven Artifacts:
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1317/org/apache/cassandra/cassandra-all/5.0-alpha2/
>>
>> The Source and Build Artifacts, and the Debian and RPM packages and
>> repositories, are available here:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cassandra/5.0-alpha2/
>>
>> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who
>> has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are
>> considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding
>> +1s and no -1's.
>>
>> [1]: CHANGES.txt:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blo

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Ekaterina Dimitrova]

I am sorry, I totally forgot to address your other concern, Paulo. The
security manager is marked for deprecation in JDK 17. So this warning is to
stress to people they need to take care of a replacement, sooner than
later. I believe we have somewhere an unassigned ticket in Open status to
address this topic.

On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 at 21:07, Ekaterina Dimitrova 
wrote:

> Hi Paulo,
>
> Thank you for testing and for raising the issue!
> I can confirm I do not use the same JDK as you, and I did not see any
> warnings on my machine on startup or when calling nodetool commands.
>
> I believe on a quick check that jdk.attach was needed for nodetool sjk.
> (It was mentioned on CASSANDRA-16895 at least)
> About jdk.compiler - it was added as per this recommendation for chronicle
> https://chronicle.software/chronicle-support-java-17/
>
> I do not believe we test with the mentioned JDK in CI, so additional
> testing will be required to figure out things better.
>
> As this is alpha release - can we open a ticket to be resolved in the
> next alpha/beta? It is up to PMC to decide, of course. Also, we need a bit
> more investigation here. I can try to take a look tomorrow in more
> detail if no one beats me to that.
>
> Best regards,
> Ekaterina
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 at 20:01, Paulo Motta  wrote:
>
>> Clarification:
>> - When running nodetool only the "Unknown module" warnings show up. All
>> warnings show up during startup.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 7:58 PM Paulo Motta  wrote:
>>
>>> Launched a tarball-based 5.0-alpha2 container on top of
>>> "eclipse-temurin:17-jre-focal" and the server starts up fine, can run
>>> nodetool and cqlsh.
>>>
>>> I got these seemingly harmless JDK17 warnings during startup and when
>>> running nodetool (no warnings on JDK11):
>>>
>>> WARNING: Unknown module: jdk.attach specified to --add-exports
>>> WARNING: Unknown module: jdk.compiler specified to --add-exports
>>> WARNING: Unknown module: jdk.compiler specified to --add-opens
>>> WARNING: A terminally deprecated method in java.lang.System has been
>>> called
>>> WARNING: System::setSecurityManager has been called by
>>> org.apache.cassandra.security.ThreadAwareSecurityManager
>>> (file:/opt/cassandra/lib/apache-cassandra-5.0-alpha2-SNAPSHOT.jar)
>>> WARNING: Please consider reporting this to the maintainers of
>>> org.apache.cassandra.security.ThreadAwareSecurityManager
>>> WARNING: System::setSecurityManager will be removed in a future release
>>>
>>> Anybody knows if these warnings are legit/expected ? We can create
>>> follow-up tickets if needed.
>>>
>>> $ java --version
>>> openjdk 17.0.9 2023-10-17
>>> OpenJDK Runtime Environment Temurin-17.0.9+9 (build 17.0.9+9)
>>> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM Temurin-17.0.9+9 (build 17.0.9+9, mixed mode,
>>> sharing)
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 6:13 PM Jonathan Ellis  wrote:
>>>
 +1

 On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 3:47 PM Mick Semb Wever  wrote:

> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 5.0-alpha2 for release.
>
> DISCLAIMER, this alpha release does not contain the features:
> Transactional Cluster Metadata (CEP-21) and Accord Transactions
> (CEP-15).  These features are under discussion to be pushed to a
> 5.1-alpha1 release, with an eta still this year.
>
> This release does contain Vector Similarity Search (CEP-30).
>
> Please also note that this is an alpha release and what that means,
> further info at
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle
>
> sha1: ea76d148c374198fede6978422895668857a927f
> Git: https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/5.0-alpha2-tentative
> Maven Artifacts:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1317/org/apache/cassandra/cassandra-all/5.0-alpha2/
>
> The Source and Build Artifacts, and the Debian and RPM packages and
> repositories, are available here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cassandra/5.0-alpha2/
>
> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who
> has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are
> considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding
> +1s and no -1's.
>
> [1]: CHANGES.txt:
>
> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/5.0-alpha2-tentative/CHANGES.txt
> [2]: NEWS.txt:
> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/5.0-alpha2-tentative/NEWS.txt
>


 --
 Jonathan Ellis
 co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
 @spyced

>>>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Ekaterina Dimitrova]

Hi Paulo,

Thank you for testing and for raising the issue!
I can confirm I do not use the same JDK as you, and I did not see any
warnings on my machine on startup or when calling nodetool commands.

I believe on a quick check that jdk.attach was needed for nodetool sjk. (It
was mentioned on CASSANDRA-16895 at least)
About jdk.compiler - it was added as per this recommendation for chronicle
https://chronicle.software/chronicle-support-java-17/

I do not believe we test with the mentioned JDK in CI, so additional
testing will be required to figure out things better.

As this is alpha release - can we open a ticket to be resolved in the
next alpha/beta? It is up to PMC to decide, of course. Also, we need a bit
more investigation here. I can try to take a look tomorrow in more
detail if no one beats me to that.

Best regards,
Ekaterina


On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 at 20:01, Paulo Motta  wrote:

> Clarification:
> - When running nodetool only the "Unknown module" warnings show up. All
> warnings show up during startup.
>
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 7:58 PM Paulo Motta  wrote:
>
>> Launched a tarball-based 5.0-alpha2 container on top of
>> "eclipse-temurin:17-jre-focal" and the server starts up fine, can run
>> nodetool and cqlsh.
>>
>> I got these seemingly harmless JDK17 warnings during startup and when
>> running nodetool (no warnings on JDK11):
>>
>> WARNING: Unknown module: jdk.attach specified to --add-exports
>> WARNING: Unknown module: jdk.compiler specified to --add-exports
>> WARNING: Unknown module: jdk.compiler specified to --add-opens
>> WARNING: A terminally deprecated method in java.lang.System has been
>> called
>> WARNING: System::setSecurityManager has been called by
>> org.apache.cassandra.security.ThreadAwareSecurityManager
>> (file:/opt/cassandra/lib/apache-cassandra-5.0-alpha2-SNAPSHOT.jar)
>> WARNING: Please consider reporting this to the maintainers of
>> org.apache.cassandra.security.ThreadAwareSecurityManager
>> WARNING: System::setSecurityManager will be removed in a future release
>>
>> Anybody knows if these warnings are legit/expected ? We can create
>> follow-up tickets if needed.
>>
>> $ java --version
>> openjdk 17.0.9 2023-10-17
>> OpenJDK Runtime Environment Temurin-17.0.9+9 (build 17.0.9+9)
>> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM Temurin-17.0.9+9 (build 17.0.9+9, mixed mode,
>> sharing)
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 6:13 PM Jonathan Ellis  wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 3:47 PM Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>>>
 Proposing the test build of Cassandra 5.0-alpha2 for release.

 DISCLAIMER, this alpha release does not contain the features:
 Transactional Cluster Metadata (CEP-21) and Accord Transactions
 (CEP-15).  These features are under discussion to be pushed to a
 5.1-alpha1 release, with an eta still this year.

 This release does contain Vector Similarity Search (CEP-30).

 Please also note that this is an alpha release and what that means,
 further info at
 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle

 sha1: ea76d148c374198fede6978422895668857a927f
 Git: https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/5.0-alpha2-tentative
 Maven Artifacts:

 https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1317/org/apache/cassandra/cassandra-all/5.0-alpha2/

 The Source and Build Artifacts, and the Debian and RPM packages and
 repositories, are available here:
 https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cassandra/5.0-alpha2/

 The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who
 has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are
 considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding
 +1s and no -1's.

 [1]: CHANGES.txt:

 https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/5.0-alpha2-tentative/CHANGES.txt
 [2]: NEWS.txt:
 https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/5.0-alpha2-tentative/NEWS.txt

>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jonathan Ellis
>>> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
>>> @spyced
>>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Paulo Motta]

Clarification:
- When running nodetool only the "Unknown module" warnings show up. All
warnings show up during startup.

On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 7:58 PM Paulo Motta  wrote:

> Launched a tarball-based 5.0-alpha2 container on top of
> "eclipse-temurin:17-jre-focal" and the server starts up fine, can run
> nodetool and cqlsh.
>
> I got these seemingly harmless JDK17 warnings during startup and when
> running nodetool (no warnings on JDK11):
>
> WARNING: Unknown module: jdk.attach specified to --add-exports
> WARNING: Unknown module: jdk.compiler specified to --add-exports
> WARNING: Unknown module: jdk.compiler specified to --add-opens
> WARNING: A terminally deprecated method in java.lang.System has been called
> WARNING: System::setSecurityManager has been called by
> org.apache.cassandra.security.ThreadAwareSecurityManager
> (file:/opt/cassandra/lib/apache-cassandra-5.0-alpha2-SNAPSHOT.jar)
> WARNING: Please consider reporting this to the maintainers of
> org.apache.cassandra.security.ThreadAwareSecurityManager
> WARNING: System::setSecurityManager will be removed in a future release
>
> Anybody knows if these warnings are legit/expected ? We can create
> follow-up tickets if needed.
>
> $ java --version
> openjdk 17.0.9 2023-10-17
> OpenJDK Runtime Environment Temurin-17.0.9+9 (build 17.0.9+9)
> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM Temurin-17.0.9+9 (build 17.0.9+9, mixed mode,
> sharing)
>
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 6:13 PM Jonathan Ellis  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 3:47 PM Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>>
>>> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 5.0-alpha2 for release.
>>>
>>> DISCLAIMER, this alpha release does not contain the features:
>>> Transactional Cluster Metadata (CEP-21) and Accord Transactions
>>> (CEP-15).  These features are under discussion to be pushed to a
>>> 5.1-alpha1 release, with an eta still this year.
>>>
>>> This release does contain Vector Similarity Search (CEP-30).
>>>
>>> Please also note that this is an alpha release and what that means,
>>> further info at
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle
>>>
>>> sha1: ea76d148c374198fede6978422895668857a927f
>>> Git: https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/5.0-alpha2-tentative
>>> Maven Artifacts:
>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1317/org/apache/cassandra/cassandra-all/5.0-alpha2/
>>>
>>> The Source and Build Artifacts, and the Debian and RPM packages and
>>> repositories, are available here:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cassandra/5.0-alpha2/
>>>
>>> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who
>>> has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are
>>> considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding
>>> +1s and no -1's.
>>>
>>> [1]: CHANGES.txt:
>>> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/5.0-alpha2-tentative/CHANGES.txt
>>> [2]: NEWS.txt:
>>> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/5.0-alpha2-tentative/NEWS.txt
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Ellis
>> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
>> @spyced
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Paulo Motta]

Launched a tarball-based 5.0-alpha2 container on top of
"eclipse-temurin:17-jre-focal" and the server starts up fine, can run
nodetool and cqlsh.

I got these seemingly harmless JDK17 warnings during startup and when
running nodetool (no warnings on JDK11):

WARNING: Unknown module: jdk.attach specified to --add-exports
WARNING: Unknown module: jdk.compiler specified to --add-exports
WARNING: Unknown module: jdk.compiler specified to --add-opens
WARNING: A terminally deprecated method in java.lang.System has been called
WARNING: System::setSecurityManager has been called by
org.apache.cassandra.security.ThreadAwareSecurityManager
(file:/opt/cassandra/lib/apache-cassandra-5.0-alpha2-SNAPSHOT.jar)
WARNING: Please consider reporting this to the maintainers of
org.apache.cassandra.security.ThreadAwareSecurityManager
WARNING: System::setSecurityManager will be removed in a future release

Anybody knows if these warnings are legit/expected ? We can create
follow-up tickets if needed.

$ java --version
openjdk 17.0.9 2023-10-17
OpenJDK Runtime Environment Temurin-17.0.9+9 (build 17.0.9+9)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM Temurin-17.0.9+9 (build 17.0.9+9, mixed mode,
sharing)

On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 6:13 PM Jonathan Ellis  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 3:47 PM Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>
>> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 5.0-alpha2 for release.
>>
>> DISCLAIMER, this alpha release does not contain the features:
>> Transactional Cluster Metadata (CEP-21) and Accord Transactions
>> (CEP-15).  These features are under discussion to be pushed to a
>> 5.1-alpha1 release, with an eta still this year.
>>
>> This release does contain Vector Similarity Search (CEP-30).
>>
>> Please also note that this is an alpha release and what that means,
>> further info at
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle
>>
>> sha1: ea76d148c374198fede6978422895668857a927f
>> Git: https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/5.0-alpha2-tentative
>> Maven Artifacts:
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1317/org/apache/cassandra/cassandra-all/5.0-alpha2/
>>
>> The Source and Build Artifacts, and the Debian and RPM packages and
>> repositories, are available here:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cassandra/5.0-alpha2/
>>
>> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who
>> has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are
>> considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding
>> +1s and no -1's.
>>
>> [1]: CHANGES.txt:
>> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/5.0-alpha2-tentative/CHANGES.txt
>> [2]: NEWS.txt:
>> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/5.0-alpha2-tentative/NEWS.txt
>>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Ellis
> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> @spyced
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Jonathan Ellis]

+1

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 3:47 PM Mick Semb Wever  wrote:

> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 5.0-alpha2 for release.
>
> DISCLAIMER, this alpha release does not contain the features:
> Transactional Cluster Metadata (CEP-21) and Accord Transactions
> (CEP-15).  These features are under discussion to be pushed to a
> 5.1-alpha1 release, with an eta still this year.
>
> This release does contain Vector Similarity Search (CEP-30).
>
> Please also note that this is an alpha release and what that means,
> further info at
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle
>
> sha1: ea76d148c374198fede6978422895668857a927f
> Git: https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/5.0-alpha2-tentative
> Maven Artifacts:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1317/org/apache/cassandra/cassandra-all/5.0-alpha2/
>
> The Source and Build Artifacts, and the Debian and RPM packages and
> repositories, are available here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cassandra/5.0-alpha2/
>
> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who
> has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are
> considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding
> +1s and no -1's.
>
> [1]: CHANGES.txt:
> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/5.0-alpha2-tentative/CHANGES.txt
> [2]: NEWS.txt:
> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/5.0-alpha2-tentative/NEWS.txt
>


-- 
Jonathan Ellis
co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
@spyced

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Brandon Williams]

+1

Kind Regards,
Brandon

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 4:47 PM Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>
> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 5.0-alpha2 for release.
>
> DISCLAIMER, this alpha release does not contain the features:
> Transactional Cluster Metadata (CEP-21) and Accord Transactions
> (CEP-15).  These features are under discussion to be pushed to a
> 5.1-alpha1 release, with an eta still this year.
>
> This release does contain Vector Similarity Search (CEP-30).
>
> Please also note that this is an alpha release and what that means,
> further info at
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle
>
> sha1: ea76d148c374198fede6978422895668857a927f
> Git: https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/5.0-alpha2-tentative
> Maven Artifacts:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1317/org/apache/cassandra/cassandra-all/5.0-alpha2/
>
> The Source and Build Artifacts, and the Debian and RPM packages and
> repositories, are available here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cassandra/5.0-alpha2/
>
> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who
> has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are
> considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding
> +1s and no -1's.
>
> [1]: CHANGES.txt:
> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/5.0-alpha2-tentative/CHANGES.txt
> [2]: NEWS.txt: 
> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/5.0-alpha2-tentative/NEWS.txt

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Maxim Muzafarov]

+1 (nb)

On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 at 03:26, guo Maxwell  wrote:
>
> +1
>
> German Eichberger via dev  于2023年11月1日周三 04:58写道：
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Heck, yeah, we already tested the branch (build ourselves) and it works 
>> great so far.
>> 
>> From: Mick Semb Wever 
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 1:43 PM
>> Cc: dev 
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2
>>
>> > The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who
>> > has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are
>> > considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding
>> > +1s and no -1's.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Checked
>> - signing correct
>> - checksums are correct
>> - source artefact builds (JDK 11+17)
>> - binary artefact runs (JDK 11+17)
>> - debian package runs (JDK 11+17)
>> - debian repo runs (JDK 11+17)
>> - redhat* package runs (JDK11+17)
>> - redhat* repo runs (JDK 11+17)

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[guo Maxwell]

+1

German Eichberger via dev  于2023年11月1日周三 04:58写道：

> +1
>
> Heck, yeah, we already tested the branch (build ourselves) and it works
> great so far.
> --
> *From:* Mick Semb Wever 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 31, 2023 1:43 PM
> *Cc:* dev 
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2
>
> > The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who
> > has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are
> > considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding
> > +1s and no -1's.
>
>
> +1
>
> Checked
> - signing correct
> - checksums are correct
> - source artefact builds (JDK 11+17)
> - binary artefact runs (JDK 11+17)
> - debian package runs (JDK 11+17)
> - debian repo runs (JDK 11+17)
> - redhat* package runs (JDK11+17)
> - redhat* repo runs (JDK 11+17)
>

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[German Eichberger via dev]

+1

Heck, yeah, we already tested the branch (build ourselves) and it works great 
so far.

From: Mick Semb Wever 
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 1:43 PM
Cc: dev 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who
> has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are
> considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding
> +1s and no -1's.


+1

Checked
- signing correct
- checksums are correct
- source artefact builds (JDK 11+17)
- binary artefact runs (JDK 11+17)
- debian package runs (JDK 11+17)
- debian repo runs (JDK 11+17)
- redhat* package runs (JDK11+17)
- redhat* repo runs (JDK 11+17)

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Mick Semb Wever]

> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who
> has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are
> considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding
> +1s and no -1's.


+1

Checked
- signing correct
- checksums are correct
- source artefact builds (JDK 11+17)
- binary artefact runs (JDK 11+17)
- debian package runs (JDK 11+17)
- debian repo runs (JDK 11+17)
- redhat* package runs (JDK11+17)
- redhat* repo runs (JDK 11+17)

[VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2

[Mick Semb Wever]

Proposing the test build of Cassandra 5.0-alpha2 for release.

DISCLAIMER, this alpha release does not contain the features:
Transactional Cluster Metadata (CEP-21) and Accord Transactions
(CEP-15).  These features are under discussion to be pushed to a
5.1-alpha1 release, with an eta still this year.

This release does contain Vector Similarity Search (CEP-30).

Please also note that this is an alpha release and what that means,
further info at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle

sha1: ea76d148c374198fede6978422895668857a927f
Git: https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/5.0-alpha2-tentative
Maven Artifacts:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1317/org/apache/cassandra/cassandra-all/5.0-alpha2/

The Source and Build Artifacts, and the Debian and RPM packages and
repositories, are available here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cassandra/5.0-alpha2/

The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who
has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are
considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding
+1s and no -1's.

[1]: CHANGES.txt:
https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/5.0-alpha2-tentative/CHANGES.txt
[2]: NEWS.txt: 
https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/5.0-alpha2-tentative/NEWS.txt