Re: [DISCUSS] Client protocol changes (Was: 20200217 4.0 Status Update)
There were some discussions on Slack whether CASSANDRA-2848 should be in scope for 4.0 or not, given that its an enhancement. I'm +1 on descoping it and leave it for a later 4.x As it involves a change in the protocol, we could use non-breaking changes to add these types of features to protocol_v5 in 4.x without a protocol version bump (new flag + new SUPPORTED option), like I've proposed above. On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 2:52 PM Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote: > For what it’s worth, we could trivially implement support for passing down > the timeout in 4.0.0, so that both the server and the client are able to > parse the frames with and without them, but delay implementation of the > server side logic necessary for terminating requests early until a further > minor (4.1/4.0.1). > > > On 19 Feb 2020, at 15:39, Jorge Bay Gondra > wrote: > > > > Also worth mentioning that, from the driver's perspective, it has to > > support a protocol version during the lifetime of the C* version line. > For > > example, the drivers should drop support for protocol v3 after C* 2.1 > goes > > EOL, somewhere this year, a protocol that was released back in 2014. > > > > We _could_ establish looser restrictions on whats a breaking change in a > > protocol version (needing a version bump), that way the driver can > support > > a protocol version partially and a protocol version could evolve within > > those limits. > > > > Back to the query timeout, a new query flag that can only be set by the > > client is not a breaking change for the driver. The driver could ask > > whether that feature of the protocol v5 is supported (OPTIONS/SUPPORTED > > messages), without having to identify the server version. > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:24 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > bened...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Behaviours don't have to be switched only with a new protocol version; > >> it's possible to support optional feature/modifier flags, the support > for > >> which is negotiated with a client on connection. > >> > >> A protocol version change seems reasonable to limit to major releases, > but > >> a protocol feature seems perfectly reasonable to introduce in a minor, I > >> think? Ideally a version change would only be necessary for forced > >> deprecation/standardisation of features, behaviour and stream encodings. > >> > >> > >> On 18/02/2020, 21:53, "Jeff Jirsa" wrote: > >> > >>A few notes: > >> > >>- Protocol changes add work to the rest of the ecosystem. Drivers > have > >> to > >>update, etc. > >>- Nobody expects protocol changes in minors, though it's less of a > >> concern > >>if we don't deprecate out the older version. E.g. if 4.0 launches > with > >>protocol v4 and protocol v5, and then 4.0.2 adds protocol v6, do we > >>deprecate out v4? If yes, you potentially break clients that only > >> supported > >>v3 and v4 in a minor version upgrade, which is unexpected. If not, > how > >> many > >>protocol versions are you willing to support at any given time? > >>- Having protocol changes introduces risk. Paging behavior across > >> protocol > >>versions is the site of a number of different bugs recently. > >> > >> > >>On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:46 PM Tolbert, Andrew > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I don't know the technical answer, but I suspect two motivations for > >>> doing new protocol versions in major releases could include: > >>> > >>> * protocol changes can be tied to feature changes that typically come > >>> in a major release. > >>> * protocol changes should be as infrequent as major releases. Each > >>> new protocol version is another thing in the test matrix that needs > >> to > >>> be tested. > >>> > >>> That last point can make it hard to get new changes in. If something > >>> doesn't make the upcoming protocol version, it might be years before > >>> another one, but I also think it's worth it to do this infrequently > >> as > >>> it makes maintaining client and server code easier if there are less > >>> protocol versions to worry about. > >>> > >>> On the client-side, libraries themselves should be avoiding making > >>> Cassandra version checks when detecting capabilities. There are a > >> few > >>> exceptions, such as system table parsi
Re: [DISCUSS] Client protocol changes (Was: 20200217 4.0 Status Update)
For what it’s worth, we could trivially implement support for passing down the timeout in 4.0.0, so that both the server and the client are able to parse the frames with and without them, but delay implementation of the server side logic necessary for terminating requests early until a further minor (4.1/4.0.1). > On 19 Feb 2020, at 15:39, Jorge Bay Gondra wrote: > > Also worth mentioning that, from the driver's perspective, it has to > support a protocol version during the lifetime of the C* version line. For > example, the drivers should drop support for protocol v3 after C* 2.1 goes > EOL, somewhere this year, a protocol that was released back in 2014. > > We _could_ establish looser restrictions on whats a breaking change in a > protocol version (needing a version bump), that way the driver can support > a protocol version partially and a protocol version could evolve within > those limits. > > Back to the query timeout, a new query flag that can only be set by the > client is not a breaking change for the driver. The driver could ask > whether that feature of the protocol v5 is supported (OPTIONS/SUPPORTED > messages), without having to identify the server version. > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:24 AM Benedict Elliott Smith > wrote: > >> Behaviours don't have to be switched only with a new protocol version; >> it's possible to support optional feature/modifier flags, the support for >> which is negotiated with a client on connection. >> >> A protocol version change seems reasonable to limit to major releases, but >> a protocol feature seems perfectly reasonable to introduce in a minor, I >> think? Ideally a version change would only be necessary for forced >> deprecation/standardisation of features, behaviour and stream encodings. >> >> >> On 18/02/2020, 21:53, "Jeff Jirsa" wrote: >> >>A few notes: >> >>- Protocol changes add work to the rest of the ecosystem. Drivers have >> to >>update, etc. >>- Nobody expects protocol changes in minors, though it's less of a >> concern >>if we don't deprecate out the older version. E.g. if 4.0 launches with >>protocol v4 and protocol v5, and then 4.0.2 adds protocol v6, do we >>deprecate out v4? If yes, you potentially break clients that only >> supported >>v3 and v4 in a minor version upgrade, which is unexpected. If not, how >> many >>protocol versions are you willing to support at any given time? >>- Having protocol changes introduces risk. Paging behavior across >> protocol >>versions is the site of a number of different bugs recently. >> >> >>On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:46 PM Tolbert, Andrew >> wrote: >> >>> I don't know the technical answer, but I suspect two motivations for >>> doing new protocol versions in major releases could include: >>> >>> * protocol changes can be tied to feature changes that typically come >>> in a major release. >>> * protocol changes should be as infrequent as major releases. Each >>> new protocol version is another thing in the test matrix that needs >> to >>> be tested. >>> >>> That last point can make it hard to get new changes in. If something >>> doesn't make the upcoming protocol version, it might be years before >>> another one, but I also think it's worth it to do this infrequently >> as >>> it makes maintaining client and server code easier if there are less >>> protocol versions to worry about. >>> >>> On the client-side, libraries themselves should be avoiding making >>> Cassandra version checks when detecting capabilities. There are a >> few >>> exceptions, such as system table parsing for schema & peers, >>> but those aren't related to the protocol. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Andy >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:22 PM Nate McCall >> wrote: >>>> >>>> [Moving to new message thread] >>>> >>>> Thanks for bringing this up, Jordan. >>>> >>>> IIRC, this was more a convention than a technical reason. Though I >> could >>> be >>>> completely misremembering this. >>>> >>>> -- Forwarded message - >>>> From: Jordan West >>>> Date: Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:13 AM >>>> Subject: Re: 20200217 4.0 Status Update >>>> To: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:52
Re: [DISCUSS] Client protocol changes (Was: 20200217 4.0 Status Update)
Behaviours don't have to be switched only with a new protocol version; it's
possible to support optional feature/modifier flags, the support for which is
negotiated with a client on connection.
A protocol version change seems reasonable to limit to major releases, but a
protocol feature seems perfectly reasonable to introduce in a minor, I think?
Ideally a version change would only be necessary for forced
deprecation/standardisation of features, behaviour and stream encodings.
On 18/02/2020, 21:53, "Jeff Jirsa" wrote:
A few notes:
- Protocol changes add work to the rest of the ecosystem. Drivers have to
update, etc.
- Nobody expects protocol changes in minors, though it's less of a concern
if we don't deprecate out the older version. E.g. if 4.0 launches with
protocol v4 and protocol v5, and then 4.0.2 adds protocol v6, do we
deprecate out v4? If yes, you potentially break clients that only supported
v3 and v4 in a minor version upgrade, which is unexpected. If not, how many
protocol versions are you willing to support at any given time?
- Having protocol changes introduces risk. Paging behavior across protocol
versions is the site of a number of different bugs recently.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:46 PM Tolbert, Andrew
wrote:
> I don't know the technical answer, but I suspect two motivations for
> doing new protocol versions in major releases could include:
>
> * protocol changes can be tied to feature changes that typically come
> in a major release.
> * protocol changes should be as infrequent as major releases. Each
> new protocol version is another thing in the test matrix that needs to
> be tested.
>
> That last point can make it hard to get new changes in. If something
> doesn't make the upcoming protocol version, it might be years before
> another one, but I also think it's worth it to do this infrequently as
> it makes maintaining client and server code easier if there are less
> protocol versions to worry about.
>
> On the client-side, libraries themselves should be avoiding making
> Cassandra version checks when detecting capabilities. There are a few
> exceptions, such as system table parsing for schema & peers,
> but those aren't related to the protocol.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:22 PM Nate McCall wrote:
> >
> > [Moving to new message thread]
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this up, Jordan.
> >
> > IIRC, this was more a convention than a technical reason. Though I could
> be
> > completely misremembering this.
> >
> > -- Forwarded message -
> > From: Jordan West
> > Date: Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:13 AM
> > Subject: Re: 20200217 4.0 Status Update
> > To:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:52 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > beyond the client proto change being painful for anything other than
> major
> > > releases
> > >
> > >
> > This came up during the community meeting today and I wanted to bring a
> > question about it to the list: could someone who is *very* familiar with
> > the client proto share w/ the list why changing the proto in anything
> other
> > than a major release is so difficult? I hear this a lot and it seems to
> be
> > fact. So that all of us don't have to go read the code, a brief summary
> > would be super helpful. Or if there is a ticket that already covers this
> > even better! I'd also be curious if there have ever been any thoughts to
> > address it as it seems to be a consistent hurdle during the release
cycle
> > and one that tends to further increase scope.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jordan
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Feb 17, 2020, at 12:43 PM, Jon Meredith
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My turn to give an update on 4.0 status. The 4.0 board created by
> Josh
> > > can
> > > > be found at
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We have 94 unresolved tickets marked against the 4.0 release. [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Things seem to have settled into a phase of working to resolve
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Client protocol changes (Was: 20200217 4.0 Status Update)
Given the JIRA in question, if you want to override the timeout to lower it, then the worst case if not supported yet is that you get the default timeout. So this then makes me wonder "is there a way to add metadata to a message which is ignored if unknown" (aka forward compatibility). Skimming the frame code i see we have boolean isCustomPayload = frame.header.flags.contains(Frame.Header.Flag.CUSTOM_PAYLOAD); boolean hasWarning = frame.header.flags.contains(Frame.Header.Flag.WARNING); UUID tracingId = isRequest || !isTracing ? null : CBUtil.readUUID(frame.body); List warnings = isRequest || !hasWarning ? null : CBUtil.readStringList(frame.body); Map customPayload = !isCustomPayload ? null : CBUtil.readBytesMap(frame.body); This makes me wonder if we could picky back off that for new features, that way older servers just ignore them. I have no idea of the negatives of customPayload (other than strings are more bytes for messages, evolution may be based off key names so annoying, etc.), but tags which are ignored sounds promising On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:53 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > A few notes: > > - Protocol changes add work to the rest of the ecosystem. Drivers have to > update, etc. > - Nobody expects protocol changes in minors, though it's less of a concern > if we don't deprecate out the older version. E.g. if 4.0 launches with > protocol v4 and protocol v5, and then 4.0.2 adds protocol v6, do we > deprecate out v4? If yes, you potentially break clients that only supported > v3 and v4 in a minor version upgrade, which is unexpected. If not, how many > protocol versions are you willing to support at any given time? > - Having protocol changes introduces risk. Paging behavior across protocol > versions is the site of a number of different bugs recently. > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:46 PM Tolbert, Andrew > wrote: > > > I don't know the technical answer, but I suspect two motivations for > > doing new protocol versions in major releases could include: > > > > * protocol changes can be tied to feature changes that typically come > > in a major release. > > * protocol changes should be as infrequent as major releases. Each > > new protocol version is another thing in the test matrix that needs to > > be tested. > > > > That last point can make it hard to get new changes in. If something > > doesn't make the upcoming protocol version, it might be years before > > another one, but I also think it's worth it to do this infrequently as > > it makes maintaining client and server code easier if there are less > > protocol versions to worry about. > > > > On the client-side, libraries themselves should be avoiding making > > Cassandra version checks when detecting capabilities. There are a few > > exceptions, such as system table parsing for schema & peers, > > but those aren't related to the protocol. > > > > Thanks, > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:22 PM Nate McCall wrote: > > > > > > [Moving to new message thread] > > > > > > Thanks for bringing this up, Jordan. > > > > > > IIRC, this was more a convention than a technical reason. Though I > could > > be > > > completely misremembering this. > > > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > > From: Jordan West > > > Date: Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:13 AM > > > Subject: Re: 20200217 4.0 Status Update > > > To: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:52 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > beyond the client proto change being painful for anything other than > > major > > > > releases > > > > > > > > > > > This came up during the community meeting today and I wanted to bring a > > > question about it to the list: could someone who is *very* familiar > with > > > the client proto share w/ the list why changing the proto in anything > > other > > > than a major release is so difficult? I hear this a lot and it seems to > > be > > > fact. So that all of us don't have to go read the code, a brief summary > > > would be super helpful. Or if there is a ticket that already covers > this > > > even better! I'd also be curious if there have ever been any thoughts > to > > > address it as it seems to be a consistent hurdle during the release > cycle > > > and one that tends to further increase scope. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jordan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 2020, at 12:4
Re: [DISCUSS] Client protocol changes (Was: 20200217 4.0 Status Update)
A few notes: - Protocol changes add work to the rest of the ecosystem. Drivers have to update, etc. - Nobody expects protocol changes in minors, though it's less of a concern if we don't deprecate out the older version. E.g. if 4.0 launches with protocol v4 and protocol v5, and then 4.0.2 adds protocol v6, do we deprecate out v4? If yes, you potentially break clients that only supported v3 and v4 in a minor version upgrade, which is unexpected. If not, how many protocol versions are you willing to support at any given time? - Having protocol changes introduces risk. Paging behavior across protocol versions is the site of a number of different bugs recently. On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:46 PM Tolbert, Andrew wrote: > I don't know the technical answer, but I suspect two motivations for > doing new protocol versions in major releases could include: > > * protocol changes can be tied to feature changes that typically come > in a major release. > * protocol changes should be as infrequent as major releases. Each > new protocol version is another thing in the test matrix that needs to > be tested. > > That last point can make it hard to get new changes in. If something > doesn't make the upcoming protocol version, it might be years before > another one, but I also think it's worth it to do this infrequently as > it makes maintaining client and server code easier if there are less > protocol versions to worry about. > > On the client-side, libraries themselves should be avoiding making > Cassandra version checks when detecting capabilities. There are a few > exceptions, such as system table parsing for schema & peers, > but those aren't related to the protocol. > > Thanks, > Andy > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:22 PM Nate McCall wrote: > > > > [Moving to new message thread] > > > > Thanks for bringing this up, Jordan. > > > > IIRC, this was more a convention than a technical reason. Though I could > be > > completely misremembering this. > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > From: Jordan West > > Date: Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:13 AM > > Subject: Re: 20200217 4.0 Status Update > > To: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:52 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > > > > > > > beyond the client proto change being painful for anything other than > major > > > releases > > > > > > > > This came up during the community meeting today and I wanted to bring a > > question about it to the list: could someone who is *very* familiar with > > the client proto share w/ the list why changing the proto in anything > other > > than a major release is so difficult? I hear this a lot and it seems to > be > > fact. So that all of us don't have to go read the code, a brief summary > > would be super helpful. Or if there is a ticket that already covers this > > even better! I'd also be curious if there have ever been any thoughts to > > address it as it seems to be a consistent hurdle during the release cycle > > and one that tends to further increase scope. > > > > Thanks, > > Jordan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 2020, at 12:43 PM, Jon Meredith > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > My turn to give an update on 4.0 status. The 4.0 board created by > Josh > > > can > > > > be found at > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355. > > > > > > > > > > > > We have 94 unresolved tickets marked against the 4.0 release. [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > Things seem to have settled into a phase of working to resolve > issues, > > > with > > > > few new issues added. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 new tickets opened (that are marked against 4.0) > > > > > > > > 11 tickets closed (including one of the newly opened ones) > > > > > > > > 39 tickets received updates to JIRA of some kind in the last week > > > > > > > > > > > > Cumulative flow over the last couple of weeks shows todo reducing and > > > done > > > > increasing as it should as we continue to close out work for the > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355=CASSANDRA=reporting=cumulativeFlowDiagram=939=936=931=1505=1506=1514=1509=1512=1507=14 > > > > > > > > > > > > Notables > > > > &g
Re: [DISCUSS] Client protocol changes (Was: 20200217 4.0 Status Update)
I don't know the technical answer, but I suspect two motivations for doing new protocol versions in major releases could include: * protocol changes can be tied to feature changes that typically come in a major release. * protocol changes should be as infrequent as major releases. Each new protocol version is another thing in the test matrix that needs to be tested. That last point can make it hard to get new changes in. If something doesn't make the upcoming protocol version, it might be years before another one, but I also think it's worth it to do this infrequently as it makes maintaining client and server code easier if there are less protocol versions to worry about. On the client-side, libraries themselves should be avoiding making Cassandra version checks when detecting capabilities. There are a few exceptions, such as system table parsing for schema & peers, but those aren't related to the protocol. Thanks, Andy On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 1:22 PM Nate McCall wrote: > > [Moving to new message thread] > > Thanks for bringing this up, Jordan. > > IIRC, this was more a convention than a technical reason. Though I could be > completely misremembering this. > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Jordan West > Date: Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:13 AM > Subject: Re: 20200217 4.0 Status Update > To: > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:52 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > > > > beyond the client proto change being painful for anything other than major > > releases > > > > > This came up during the community meeting today and I wanted to bring a > question about it to the list: could someone who is *very* familiar with > the client proto share w/ the list why changing the proto in anything other > than a major release is so difficult? I hear this a lot and it seems to be > fact. So that all of us don't have to go read the code, a brief summary > would be super helpful. Or if there is a ticket that already covers this > even better! I'd also be curious if there have ever been any thoughts to > address it as it seems to be a consistent hurdle during the release cycle > and one that tends to further increase scope. > > Thanks, > Jordan > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 2020, at 12:43 PM, Jon Meredith > > wrote: > > > > > > My turn to give an update on 4.0 status. The 4.0 board created by Josh > > can > > > be found at > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355. > > > > > > > > > We have 94 unresolved tickets marked against the 4.0 release. [1] > > > > > > > > > Things seem to have settled into a phase of working to resolve issues, > > with > > > few new issues added. > > > > > > > > > 2 new tickets opened (that are marked against 4.0) > > > > > > 11 tickets closed (including one of the newly opened ones) > > > > > > 39 tickets received updates to JIRA of some kind in the last week > > > > > > > > > Cumulative flow over the last couple of weeks shows todo reducing and > > done > > > increasing as it should as we continue to close out work for the > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355=CASSANDRA=reporting=cumulativeFlowDiagram=939=936=931=1505=1506=1514=1509=1512=1507=14 > > > > > > > > > Notables > > > > > > - Python 3 support for cqlsh has been committed (thank you all who > > > persevered on this) > > > > > > - Some activity on Windows support - perhaps not dead yet. > > > > > > - Lots of movement on documentation > > > > > > - Lots of activity on flaky tests. > > > > > > - Oldest ticket with a patch award goes to CASSANDRA-2848 > > > > > > > > > There are 18 tickets marked as patch available (easy access from the > > > Dashboard [2], apologies if they're already picked up for review) > > > > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15567 Allow EXTRA_CLASSPATH to work in tarball/source > > > installations > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15553 Preview repair should include sstables from finalized > > > incremental repair sessions > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15550 Fix flaky test > > > org.apache.cassandra.streaming.StreamTransferTaskTest > > > testFailSessionDuringTransferShouldNotReleaseReferences > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15488/CASSANDRA-15353 Configuration file > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15484/CASSANDRA-15353 Read Repair > > > &g
[DISCUSS] Client protocol changes (Was: 20200217 4.0 Status Update)
[Moving to new message thread] Thanks for bringing this up, Jordan. IIRC, this was more a convention than a technical reason. Though I could be completely misremembering this. -- Forwarded message - From: Jordan West Date: Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:13 AM Subject: Re: 20200217 4.0 Status Update To: On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:52 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > beyond the client proto change being painful for anything other than major > releases > > This came up during the community meeting today and I wanted to bring a question about it to the list: could someone who is *very* familiar with the client proto share w/ the list why changing the proto in anything other than a major release is so difficult? I hear this a lot and it seems to be fact. So that all of us don't have to go read the code, a brief summary would be super helpful. Or if there is a ticket that already covers this even better! I'd also be curious if there have ever been any thoughts to address it as it seems to be a consistent hurdle during the release cycle and one that tends to further increase scope. Thanks, Jordan > > > > On Feb 17, 2020, at 12:43 PM, Jon Meredith > wrote: > > > > My turn to give an update on 4.0 status. The 4.0 board created by Josh > can > > be found at > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355. > > > > > > We have 94 unresolved tickets marked against the 4.0 release. [1] > > > > > > Things seem to have settled into a phase of working to resolve issues, > with > > few new issues added. > > > > > > 2 new tickets opened (that are marked against 4.0) > > > > 11 tickets closed (including one of the newly opened ones) > > > > 39 tickets received updates to JIRA of some kind in the last week > > > > > > Cumulative flow over the last couple of weeks shows todo reducing and > done > > increasing as it should as we continue to close out work for the release. > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355=CASSANDRA=reporting=cumulativeFlowDiagram=939=936=931=1505=1506=1514=1509=1512=1507=14 > > > > > > Notables > > > > - Python 3 support for cqlsh has been committed (thank you all who > > persevered on this) > > > > - Some activity on Windows support - perhaps not dead yet. > > > > - Lots of movement on documentation > > > > - Lots of activity on flaky tests. > > > > - Oldest ticket with a patch award goes to CASSANDRA-2848 > > > > > > There are 18 tickets marked as patch available (easy access from the > > Dashboard [2], apologies if they're already picked up for review) > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15567 Allow EXTRA_CLASSPATH to work in tarball/source > > installations > > > > CASSANDRA-15553 Preview repair should include sstables from finalized > > incremental repair sessions > > > > CASSANDRA-15550 Fix flaky test > > org.apache.cassandra.streaming.StreamTransferTaskTest > > testFailSessionDuringTransferShouldNotReleaseReferences > > > > CASSANDRA-15488/CASSANDRA-15353 Configuration file > > > > CASSANDRA-15484/CASSANDRA-15353 Read Repair > > > > CASSANDRA-15482/CASSANDRA-15353 Guarantees > > > > CASSANDRA-15481/CASSANDRA-15353 Data Modeling > > > > CASSANDRA-15393/CASSANDRA-15387 Add byte array backed cells > > > > CASSANDRA-15391/CASSANDRA-15387 Reduce heap footprint of commonly > allocated > > objects > > > > CASSANDRA-15367 Memtable memory allocations may deadlock > > > > CASSANDRA-15308 Fix flakey testAcquireReleaseOutbound - > > org.apache.cassandra.net.ConnectionTest > > > > CASSANDRA-1530 5Fix multi DC nodetool status output > > > > CASSANDRA-14973 Bring v5 driver out of beta, introduce v6 before 4.0 > > release is cut > > > > CASSANDRA-14939 fix some operational holes in incremental repair > > > > CASSANDRA-14904 SSTableloader doesn't understand listening for CQL > > connections on multiple ports > > > > CASSANDRA-14842 SSL connection problems when upgrading to 4.0 when > > upgrading from 3.0.x > > > > CASSANDRA-14761 Rename speculative_retry to match additional_write_policy > > > > CASSANDRA-2848 Make the Client API support passing down timeouts > > > > > > *LHF / Failing Tests*: We have 7 unassigned test failures that are all > > > > great candidates to pick up and get involved in: > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355=CASSANDRA=1660=1661=
Re: 20200217 4.0 Status Update
Moving to a new thread. On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:13 AM Jordan West wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:52 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > > > > beyond the client proto change being painful for anything other than > major > > releases > > > > > This came up during the community meeting today and I wanted to bring a > question about it to the list: could someone who is *very* familiar with > the client proto share w/ the list why changing the proto in anything other > than a major release is so difficult? I hear this a lot and it seems to be > fact. So that all of us don't have to go read the code, a brief summary > would be super helpful. Or if there is a ticket that already covers this > even better! I'd also be curious if there have ever been any thoughts to > address it as it seems to be a consistent hurdle during the release cycle > and one that tends to further increase scope. > > Thanks, > Jordan > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 2020, at 12:43 PM, Jon Meredith > > wrote: > > > > > > My turn to give an update on 4.0 status. The 4.0 board created by Josh > > can > > > be found at > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355. > > > > > > > > > We have 94 unresolved tickets marked against the 4.0 release. [1] > > > > > > > > > Things seem to have settled into a phase of working to resolve issues, > > with > > > few new issues added. > > > > > > > > > 2 new tickets opened (that are marked against 4.0) > > > > > > 11 tickets closed (including one of the newly opened ones) > > > > > > 39 tickets received updates to JIRA of some kind in the last week > > > > > > > > > Cumulative flow over the last couple of weeks shows todo reducing and > > done > > > increasing as it should as we continue to close out work for the > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355=CASSANDRA=reporting=cumulativeFlowDiagram=939=936=931=1505=1506=1514=1509=1512=1507=14 > > > > > > > > > Notables > > > > > > - Python 3 support for cqlsh has been committed (thank you all who > > > persevered on this) > > > > > > - Some activity on Windows support - perhaps not dead yet. > > > > > > - Lots of movement on documentation > > > > > > - Lots of activity on flaky tests. > > > > > > - Oldest ticket with a patch award goes to CASSANDRA-2848 > > > > > > > > > There are 18 tickets marked as patch available (easy access from the > > > Dashboard [2], apologies if they're already picked up for review) > > > > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15567 Allow EXTRA_CLASSPATH to work in tarball/source > > > installations > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15553 Preview repair should include sstables from finalized > > > incremental repair sessions > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15550 Fix flaky test > > > org.apache.cassandra.streaming.StreamTransferTaskTest > > > testFailSessionDuringTransferShouldNotReleaseReferences > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15488/CASSANDRA-15353 Configuration file > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15484/CASSANDRA-15353 Read Repair > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15482/CASSANDRA-15353 Guarantees > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15481/CASSANDRA-15353 Data Modeling > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15393/CASSANDRA-15387 Add byte array backed cells > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15391/CASSANDRA-15387 Reduce heap footprint of commonly > > allocated > > > objects > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15367 Memtable memory allocations may deadlock > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15308 Fix flakey testAcquireReleaseOutbound - > > > org.apache.cassandra.net.ConnectionTest > > > > > > CASSANDRA-1530 5Fix multi DC nodetool status output > > > > > > CASSANDRA-14973 Bring v5 driver out of beta, introduce v6 before 4.0 > > > release is cut > > > > > > CASSANDRA-14939 fix some operational holes in incremental repair > > > > > > CASSANDRA-14904 SSTableloader doesn't understand listening for CQL > > > connections on multiple ports > > > > > > CASSANDRA-14842 SSL connection problems when upgrading to 4.0 when > > > upgrading from 3.0.x > > > > > > CASSANDRA-14761 Rename speculative_retry to match > additional_write_policy > > > > > > CASSANDRA-2848 Make the Client API support passing down timeouts > > > > > > > > > *LHF / Failing Tests*: We have 7 unassigned test failures that are all > > > > > > great candidates to pick up and get involved in: > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355=CASSANDRA=1660=1661=1658 > > > > > > > > > Thanks again to everybody for all the contributions. It's really good > to > > > see the open issue count start dropping. > > > > > > > > > Feedback on whether this information is useful and how it can be > improved > > > is both welcome and appreciated. > > > > > > > > > Cheers, Jon > > > > > > > > > [1] Unresolved 4.0 tickets > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15567?filter=12347782=project%20%3D%20cassandra%20AND%20fixversion%20in%20(4.0%2C%204.0.0%2C%204.0-alpha%2C%204.0-beta)%20AND%20status%20!%3D%20Resolved > > > > > > [2] Patch Available > > > > > >
Re: 20200217 4.0 Status Update
On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:52 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > beyond the client proto change being painful for anything other than major > releases > > This came up during the community meeting today and I wanted to bring a question about it to the list: could someone who is *very* familiar with the client proto share w/ the list why changing the proto in anything other than a major release is so difficult? I hear this a lot and it seems to be fact. So that all of us don't have to go read the code, a brief summary would be super helpful. Or if there is a ticket that already covers this even better! I'd also be curious if there have ever been any thoughts to address it as it seems to be a consistent hurdle during the release cycle and one that tends to further increase scope. Thanks, Jordan > > > > On Feb 17, 2020, at 12:43 PM, Jon Meredith > wrote: > > > > My turn to give an update on 4.0 status. The 4.0 board created by Josh > can > > be found at > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355. > > > > > > We have 94 unresolved tickets marked against the 4.0 release. [1] > > > > > > Things seem to have settled into a phase of working to resolve issues, > with > > few new issues added. > > > > > > 2 new tickets opened (that are marked against 4.0) > > > > 11 tickets closed (including one of the newly opened ones) > > > > 39 tickets received updates to JIRA of some kind in the last week > > > > > > Cumulative flow over the last couple of weeks shows todo reducing and > done > > increasing as it should as we continue to close out work for the release. > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355=CASSANDRA=reporting=cumulativeFlowDiagram=939=936=931=1505=1506=1514=1509=1512=1507=14 > > > > > > Notables > > > > - Python 3 support for cqlsh has been committed (thank you all who > > persevered on this) > > > > - Some activity on Windows support - perhaps not dead yet. > > > > - Lots of movement on documentation > > > > - Lots of activity on flaky tests. > > > > - Oldest ticket with a patch award goes to CASSANDRA-2848 > > > > > > There are 18 tickets marked as patch available (easy access from the > > Dashboard [2], apologies if they're already picked up for review) > > > > > > CASSANDRA-15567 Allow EXTRA_CLASSPATH to work in tarball/source > > installations > > > > CASSANDRA-15553 Preview repair should include sstables from finalized > > incremental repair sessions > > > > CASSANDRA-15550 Fix flaky test > > org.apache.cassandra.streaming.StreamTransferTaskTest > > testFailSessionDuringTransferShouldNotReleaseReferences > > > > CASSANDRA-15488/CASSANDRA-15353 Configuration file > > > > CASSANDRA-15484/CASSANDRA-15353 Read Repair > > > > CASSANDRA-15482/CASSANDRA-15353 Guarantees > > > > CASSANDRA-15481/CASSANDRA-15353 Data Modeling > > > > CASSANDRA-15393/CASSANDRA-15387 Add byte array backed cells > > > > CASSANDRA-15391/CASSANDRA-15387 Reduce heap footprint of commonly > allocated > > objects > > > > CASSANDRA-15367 Memtable memory allocations may deadlock > > > > CASSANDRA-15308 Fix flakey testAcquireReleaseOutbound - > > org.apache.cassandra.net.ConnectionTest > > > > CASSANDRA-1530 5Fix multi DC nodetool status output > > > > CASSANDRA-14973 Bring v5 driver out of beta, introduce v6 before 4.0 > > release is cut > > > > CASSANDRA-14939 fix some operational holes in incremental repair > > > > CASSANDRA-14904 SSTableloader doesn't understand listening for CQL > > connections on multiple ports > > > > CASSANDRA-14842 SSL connection problems when upgrading to 4.0 when > > upgrading from 3.0.x > > > > CASSANDRA-14761 Rename speculative_retry to match additional_write_policy > > > > CASSANDRA-2848 Make the Client API support passing down timeouts > > > > > > *LHF / Failing Tests*: We have 7 unassigned test failures that are all > > > > great candidates to pick up and get involved in: > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355=CASSANDRA=1660=1661=1658 > > > > > > Thanks again to everybody for all the contributions. It's really good to > > see the open issue count start dropping. > > > > > > Feedback on whether this information is useful and how it can be improved > > is both welcome and appreciated. > > > > > > Cheers, Jon > > > > > > [1] Unresolved 4.0 tickets > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15567?filter=12347782=project%20%3D%20cassandra%20AND%20fixversion%20in%20(4.0%2C%204.0.0%2C%204.0-alpha%2C%204.0-beta)%20AND%20status%20!%3D%20Resolved > > > > [2] Patch Available > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=12334910 > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: 20200217 4.0 Status Update
Hard to see an argument for CASSANDRA-2848 being in scope for 4.0 (beyond the client proto change being painful for anything other than major releases). > On Feb 17, 2020, at 12:43 PM, Jon Meredith wrote: > > My turn to give an update on 4.0 status. The 4.0 board created by Josh can > be found at > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355. > > > We have 94 unresolved tickets marked against the 4.0 release. [1] > > > Things seem to have settled into a phase of working to resolve issues, with > few new issues added. > > > 2 new tickets opened (that are marked against 4.0) > > 11 tickets closed (including one of the newly opened ones) > > 39 tickets received updates to JIRA of some kind in the last week > > > Cumulative flow over the last couple of weeks shows todo reducing and done > increasing as it should as we continue to close out work for the release. > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355=CASSANDRA=reporting=cumulativeFlowDiagram=939=936=931=1505=1506=1514=1509=1512=1507=14 > > > Notables > > - Python 3 support for cqlsh has been committed (thank you all who > persevered on this) > > - Some activity on Windows support - perhaps not dead yet. > > - Lots of movement on documentation > > - Lots of activity on flaky tests. > > - Oldest ticket with a patch award goes to CASSANDRA-2848 > > > There are 18 tickets marked as patch available (easy access from the > Dashboard [2], apologies if they're already picked up for review) > > > CASSANDRA-15567 Allow EXTRA_CLASSPATH to work in tarball/source > installations > > CASSANDRA-15553 Preview repair should include sstables from finalized > incremental repair sessions > > CASSANDRA-15550 Fix flaky test > org.apache.cassandra.streaming.StreamTransferTaskTest > testFailSessionDuringTransferShouldNotReleaseReferences > > CASSANDRA-15488/CASSANDRA-15353 Configuration file > > CASSANDRA-15484/CASSANDRA-15353 Read Repair > > CASSANDRA-15482/CASSANDRA-15353 Guarantees > > CASSANDRA-15481/CASSANDRA-15353 Data Modeling > > CASSANDRA-15393/CASSANDRA-15387 Add byte array backed cells > > CASSANDRA-15391/CASSANDRA-15387 Reduce heap footprint of commonly allocated > objects > > CASSANDRA-15367 Memtable memory allocations may deadlock > > CASSANDRA-15308 Fix flakey testAcquireReleaseOutbound - > org.apache.cassandra.net.ConnectionTest > > CASSANDRA-1530 5Fix multi DC nodetool status output > > CASSANDRA-14973 Bring v5 driver out of beta, introduce v6 before 4.0 > release is cut > > CASSANDRA-14939 fix some operational holes in incremental repair > > CASSANDRA-14904 SSTableloader doesn't understand listening for CQL > connections on multiple ports > > CASSANDRA-14842 SSL connection problems when upgrading to 4.0 when > upgrading from 3.0.x > > CASSANDRA-14761 Rename speculative_retry to match additional_write_policy > > CASSANDRA-2848 Make the Client API support passing down timeouts > > > *LHF / Failing Tests*: We have 7 unassigned test failures that are all > > great candidates to pick up and get involved in: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355=CASSANDRA=1660=1661=1658 > > > Thanks again to everybody for all the contributions. It's really good to > see the open issue count start dropping. > > > Feedback on whether this information is useful and how it can be improved > is both welcome and appreciated. > > > Cheers, Jon > > > [1] Unresolved 4.0 tickets > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15567?filter=12347782=project%20%3D%20cassandra%20AND%20fixversion%20in%20(4.0%2C%204.0.0%2C%204.0-alpha%2C%204.0-beta)%20AND%20status%20!%3D%20Resolved > > [2] Patch Available > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=12334910 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
20200217 4.0 Status Update
My turn to give an update on 4.0 status. The 4.0 board created by Josh can be found at https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355. We have 94 unresolved tickets marked against the 4.0 release. [1] Things seem to have settled into a phase of working to resolve issues, with few new issues added. 2 new tickets opened (that are marked against 4.0) 11 tickets closed (including one of the newly opened ones) 39 tickets received updates to JIRA of some kind in the last week Cumulative flow over the last couple of weeks shows todo reducing and done increasing as it should as we continue to close out work for the release. https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355=CASSANDRA=reporting=cumulativeFlowDiagram=939=936=931=1505=1506=1514=1509=1512=1507=14 Notables - Python 3 support for cqlsh has been committed (thank you all who persevered on this) - Some activity on Windows support - perhaps not dead yet. - Lots of movement on documentation - Lots of activity on flaky tests. - Oldest ticket with a patch award goes to CASSANDRA-2848 There are 18 tickets marked as patch available (easy access from the Dashboard [2], apologies if they're already picked up for review) CASSANDRA-15567 Allow EXTRA_CLASSPATH to work in tarball/source installations CASSANDRA-15553 Preview repair should include sstables from finalized incremental repair sessions CASSANDRA-15550 Fix flaky test org.apache.cassandra.streaming.StreamTransferTaskTest testFailSessionDuringTransferShouldNotReleaseReferences CASSANDRA-15488/CASSANDRA-15353 Configuration file CASSANDRA-15484/CASSANDRA-15353 Read Repair CASSANDRA-15482/CASSANDRA-15353 Guarantees CASSANDRA-15481/CASSANDRA-15353 Data Modeling CASSANDRA-15393/CASSANDRA-15387 Add byte array backed cells CASSANDRA-15391/CASSANDRA-15387 Reduce heap footprint of commonly allocated objects CASSANDRA-15367 Memtable memory allocations may deadlock CASSANDRA-15308 Fix flakey testAcquireReleaseOutbound - org.apache.cassandra.net.ConnectionTest CASSANDRA-1530 5Fix multi DC nodetool status output CASSANDRA-14973 Bring v5 driver out of beta, introduce v6 before 4.0 release is cut CASSANDRA-14939 fix some operational holes in incremental repair CASSANDRA-14904 SSTableloader doesn't understand listening for CQL connections on multiple ports CASSANDRA-14842 SSL connection problems when upgrading to 4.0 when upgrading from 3.0.x CASSANDRA-14761 Rename speculative_retry to match additional_write_policy CASSANDRA-2848 Make the Client API support passing down timeouts *LHF / Failing Tests*: We have 7 unassigned test failures that are all great candidates to pick up and get involved in: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355=CASSANDRA=1660=1661=1658 Thanks again to everybody for all the contributions. It's really good to see the open issue count start dropping. Feedback on whether this information is useful and how it can be improved is both welcome and appreciated. Cheers, Jon [1] Unresolved 4.0 tickets https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15567?filter=12347782=project%20%3D%20cassandra%20AND%20fixversion%20in%20(4.0%2C%204.0.0%2C%204.0-alpha%2C%204.0-beta)%20AND%20status%20!%3D%20Resolved [2] Patch Available https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa?selectPageId=12334910
