What we’d usually do is revert the offending ticket and push it to the next release, if this indeed were significant enough.
So option 4 would be to revert CDC fast (painful) and ship. Option 5 would be to quickly fix the issue, retag, and revote, with 3.9 still following up on schedule. Option 6 would be to ignore the calendar entirely. Fix or revert the issue eventually, and release 3.8 then. Have 3.9 and 3.0.9 out at whatever time we decide to, and go back to monthly cycles from there on. TBH I don’t think anybody is even going to notice, or care. So I’m fine with 1, 4, 5, 6, but not reverting my +1 so far. -- AY On 21 July 2016 at 14:46:17, Sylvain Lebresne (sylv...@datastax.com) wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > I see the alternatives as: > > 1. Release this as 3.8 > 2. Skip 3.8 and release 3.9 next month on schedule > 3. Skip this month and release 3.8 next month instead > I've hopefully made it clear I don't really like 1. I'm totally fine with either 2 or 3 though (with a very very small preference for 3. because I suspect skipping a release might confuse a few users, but also knowing that 2. has the small advantage of keeping the 3.0.x and 3.x versions released more or less in lockstep). > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko <alek...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > I still think the issue is minor enough, and with 3.8 being extremely > > delayed, and being a non-odd release, at that, we’d be better off just > > pushing it. > > > > Also, I know we’ve been easy on -1s when voting on releases, but I want > to > > remind people in general that release votes can not be vetoed and only > > require a majority of binding votes, > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes > > > > -- > > AY > > > > On 21 July 2016 at 08:57:22, Sylvain Lebresne (sylv...@datastax.com) > > wrote: > > > > Sorry but I'm (binding) -1 on this because of > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12236. > > > > I disagree that knowingly releasing a version that will temporarily break > > in-flight queries during upgrade, even if it's for a very short > time-frame > > until re-connection, is ok. I'll note in particular that in the test > > report, there is 74! failures in the upgrade tests (for reference the 3.7 > > test report had only 2 upgrade tests failure both with open tickets). > Given > > that we have a known problem during upgrade, I don't really buy the "We > are > > assuming these are due to a recent downsize in instance size that these > > tests run on" and that suggest to me the problem is not too minor. > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Dave Brosius <dbros...@mebigfatguy.com> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > On 07/20/2016 05:48 PM, Michael Shuler wrote: > > > > > >> I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.8. > > >> > > >> sha1: c3ded0551f538f7845602b27d53240cd8129265c > > >> Git: > > >> > > >> > > > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.8-tentative > > > >> Artifacts: > > >> > > >> > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1123/org/apache/cassandra/apache-cassandra/3.8/ > > > >> Staging repository: > > >> > > >> > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1123/ > > >> > > >> The debian packages are available here: > > >> http://people.apache.org/~mshuler/ > > >> > > >> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). > > >> > > >> [1]: http://goo.gl/oGNH0i (CHANGES.txt) > > >> [2]: http://goo.gl/KjMtUn (NEWS.txt) > > >> [3]: https://goo.gl/TxVLKo (3.8 Test Summary) > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > Jonathan Ellis > Project Chair, Apache Cassandra > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > @spyced >
