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