I apologize for messing this vote up. So, what should happen now? Drop RESULT from the subject and continue discussion of alternatives and voting?
-- Kind regards, Michael On 07/27/2016 06:33 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote: > The difference is that those -1s were based on new information > discovered after the vote was started, while this one wasn’t. > > In addition to that, the discussion was still ongoing, and a decision > on the alternative has not been made. As such closing the vote was > definitely premature. > > FWIW I intended to swap my +1 with a -1, but was not given a chance > to do so. As for what alternative I prefer, I’m not sure yet. > > -- AY > > On 27 July 2016 at 09:59:50, Sylvain Lebresne (sylv...@datastax.com) > wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko > <alek...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Sorry, but I’m counting 3 binding +1s and 1 binding -1 (2, if you >> interpret Jonathan’s emails as such). >> >> Thus, if you were to do close the vote now, the vote is passing >> with the binding majority, and the required minimum # of +1s >> gained. >> >> I also don’t see the PMC consensus on ‘August 3.8 release target’. >> >> >> As such, the vote is now reopened for further discussion, and to >> allow PMC to change their votes if they feel like it (I, for one, >> have just returned, and need to reevaluate 12236 in light of new >> comments). >> > > It has been my understanding that we took a more human approach to > release decisions than strictly and blindly adhering to the Apache > written voting rules. There has been many votes that has been > re-rolled even though they had had more than 3 binding vote already > when a problem was detected, and it never took an official PMC vote > to do so, nor did we ever officially waited on the cast votes to be > officially reverted. > > I'm also sad that knowing that there is a bug that breaks in-flight > queries during upgrade *and* the fact the vast majority of our > upgrade tests are failing is not _obviously_ enough to hold a > release, without the need for further considerations. This speaks imo > poorly of the PMC attachment to release quality. > > But you are correct on the technicality of vote counting and their > official consequences according to the written rules ... > > >> >> -- AY >> >> On 25 July 2016 at 15:46:40, Michael Shuler (mshu...@apache.org) >> wrote: >> >> Thanks for the clarity, Jonathan. I agree that an August 3.8 >> release target sounds like the most reasonable option, at this >> point in time. >> >> With Sylvain's binding -1, this vote has failed. >> >> -- Kind regards, Michael Shuler >> >> On 07/21/2016 05:33 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: >>> I feel like the calendar is relevant though because if we delay >>> 3.8 more we're looking at a week, maybe 10 days before 3.9 is >>> scheduled. Which doesn't give us much time for the stabilizing >>> we're supposed to do in >> 3.9. >>> >>> All in all I think I agree that releasing 3.8 in August is less >>> confusing than skipping it entirely. And I don't like the idea of >>> ignoring a whole bunch of test failures and hoping they don't >>> mean anything, because we >> just >>> had that thread about getting more rigorous about tests, not >>> less. >>> >>> So I would recommend we go ahead and fix this before releasing, >>> and to avoid a super compressed 3.9 window either retarget 3.8 >>> for August, or >> 3.9 >>> for September. >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko >>> <alek...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
