"4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a very long time. Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's 4.0 going to release?" question after his repair talk and he suggested possibly Q4 2019. This morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being close by ApacheCon Las Vegas in September. The

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

+1 on setting a date. Dinesh > On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler wrote: > > We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a very long time. > > Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's 4.0 going to release?" question > after his repair talk and he suggested possibly Q4 2019. Th

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Having at least a ballpark target on the website will definitely help. +1 on setting it to Q4 2019 for now. On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi wrote: > +1 on setting a date. > > Dinesh > > > On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler > wrote: > > > > We've had 4.0 listed as TBD rele

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

+1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be changed is still enormously more attractive than no date at all. Adam Soroka > On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti > wrote: > > Having at least a ballpark target on the website will definitely help. +1 > on setting it to Q4 2019 f

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

+1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last sept(?) to freeze features and start extensive testing. Maybe its really time to hit it! :-) Attila Wind http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw Mobile: +36 31 7811355 On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote: +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Hi, Is there a page where it is written what is expected from an alpha, beta, rc and a 4.0 release? Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is this for alpha, beta, rc or 4.0 release? Thanks, Sankalp On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind wrote: > +1+1+1 I read a blog post wa

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Sankalp, Great point. This is the page created for testing. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans I think we need to define the various release types and the exit criteria for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab at this or s

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

I have taken an initial stab at documenting release types and exit criteria in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate on. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing Thanks, Sumanth On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi wr

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Hi Sumanth, Thank you so much for taking the time to put this together. Cheers, -Nate On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti < sumanth.pasupuleti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have taken an initial stab at documenting release types and exit criteria > in a google doc, to get us started, a

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case is we can announce 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do or die" date, and I don't think we need to announce it or make promises. Sticking with "when it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target, and this is imo

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Hi Jon, When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with 3.0 minor releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is cut. Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it will take as long as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this. Thanks, Sankalp

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

> > The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is cut. FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a great look for the project. There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already. While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've backchanneled with) believe th

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0 as a production ready database for business critical cases of TLP customers. If it's not ready for prod, there's no way I'd vote to release it. The TLP tooling I've mentioned was developed over the last 6 months with the specific goal of being

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

+1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan. Jira to track progress. Dinesh > On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > >> >> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is cut. > > FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a great look f

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Hey all, Thought I’d chime in here as one of the people surprised that virtual tables for table stats weren’t being included in 4.0, especially given that QoL for administrators is one of the 4.0 promises. -Kyle Samson On 2019/05/28 16:39:59, Jon Haddad wrote: > Sept is a pretty long ways of

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

I think that was intent but ran out of time. There were 2 approaches to this, one being dumping the Metric's into a virtual table, and another to have specialized views (like nodetool). The later is started in CASSANDRA-14670 and still waitin

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Hi Kyle, I understand your frustration here - I really do. There are a lot of awesome additions, features, etc. that have been stuck in purgatory for far longer than any of us would like. It will be worth it once we get 4.0 to a stable point as we will be in a much better position to iterate quick

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Echoing Jon’s point here – JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0 as a production ready database for business critical cases” I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and achievable, and one I’m legitimately excited about. Re: the current state of the test pl

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Thank you Nate and Chris for the feedback. It’s a shame this won’t make it through to 4.0 release but I do understand respecting the feature freeze. I just figured I’d chime in as one of the parties Jon mentioned. I will definitely continue to follow the mailing list and feature development. - Ky

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life cycle document. I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any additional feedback folks may have. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit# Thanks, Sumanth On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Had a few more points of feedback for you Sumanth; trying to get some clarity on how the PMC might function w/relation to the various votes and definitions. Thanks for the integration and continued effort on this - it's looking good! On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:45 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti < sumanth.pa

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a round of comments as well. Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many of the items under "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the release of an alpha, especially those related to correctness/safety, scope lock, feature c

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all the incremental feedback I have thus far. Looking for any additional feedback folks may have. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit# On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas wrote: > Than

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Maybe a bit off-topic: Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take care of beta protocol [1], include released driver versions [2] and remove compact storage remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd argue we should do it sooner rather than later. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Submitted patch to add release lifecycle information to the website https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15249 On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:57 AM Oleksandr Petrov wrote: > Maybe a bit off-topic: > > Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take care of beta protocol > [1], include

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

One more call for any additional comments/ feedback on the release lifecycle document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit# Thanks, Sumanth On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:01 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti < sumanth.pasupuleti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Submitted pat

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Is it common to have such strict release criteria from RC to GA... Release Candidate (RC) - Thorough testing is performed, and if no bugs are found within a testing period of one month, release is promoted to GA. - If bugs are found, fixes are made and above step is repeated Th

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

I have left some comments on the document. Apart from a few clarifications and some minor changes, I feel its in a good shape. I think we should move forward with it. We can refine the process, definitions & criteria as we learn. Dinesh > On Sep 11, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Sumanth Pasupuleti > wro

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

We added and changed a lot of things to this doc during a discussion in NGCC. Can everyone take a look at it and provide feedback. On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:51 PM Dinesh Joshi wrote: > I have left some comments on the document. Apart from a few clarifications > and some minor changes, I feel it

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Nice work... I like this and have no additions/comments at this time On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 4:18 PM sankalp kohli wrote: > We added and changed a lot of things to this doc during a discussion in > NGCC. Can everyone take a look at it and provide feedback. > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:51 PM Dine

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Can we put it on vote(if required) if no one has more comments? On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:44 PM Jonathan Koppenhofer wrote: > Nice work... I like this and have no additions/comments at this time > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 4:18 PM sankalp kohli > wrote: > > > We added and changed a lot of things

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

I think silence is a "nothing to add". At least it is from me. On Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 10:57 AM sankalp kohli wrote: > Can we put it on vote(if required) if no one has more comments? > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:44 PM Jonathan Koppenhofer > wrote: > > > Nice work... I like this and have no addit

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Let’s put this to vote next week unless someone thinks it is not required > On Sep 25, 2019, at 10:56 AM, sankalp kohli wrote: > >  > Can we put it on vote(if required) if no one has more comments? > >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:44 PM Jonathan Koppenhofer >> wrote: >> Nice work... I like t

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

For what it's worth, lazy consensus is a very important concept in the Apache Way . Methinks if we got a little more comfortable w/lazy consensus and majority voting on process we might see

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Lazy consensus still requires a formal vote, just one that is declared to be governed by lazy consensus. I think we need to spend some time formalising our governance, so that we can employ it confidently. At the very least, we should try to codify where we are comfortable employing lazy conse

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

I believe your statement is inaccurate, or perhaps just overly broad: " Lazy consensus still requires a formal vote, just one that is declared to be governed by lazy consensus"; the article I linked explicitly states: "You don't have to insist people discuss and/or approve your plan, *and you cert

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

I will still start a vote and not solely rely on lazy consensus. On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 11:06 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > I believe your statement is inaccurate, or perhaps just overly broad: " > Lazy consensus still requires a formal vote, just one that is declared to > be governed by lazy con

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

Hmm, you're right, I'm not sure what I was remembering. Fortunately you can just ignore the first sentence of my email; mea culpa. However, I'm not sure how useful it is as a mechanism for achieving consensus if there's no way for voting members to know a decision is being made. The value of

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

> > These are all further reasons to codify our project governance, as we keep > referring to things that don't map to project norms. Strong +1 here. To reiterate: I don't necessarily agree w/all the stated defaults for project management and behavior, we just haven't really articulated our own cu

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

> Seems like the intersection of this is: "Lazy consensus is simply an > announcement of 'silence gives assent.'" with a caveat of "you have N hours > to dissent before we take silence as assent" when you're unsure or a topic > is contentious, which tracks with what I've seen kind of informally h