This is especially relevant if people wish to focus on removing things. For example, gossip 2.0 sounds great, but seems geared toward huge clusters which is not likely a majority of users. For those with a 20 node cluster are the indirect benefits woth it?
Also there seems to be a first push to remove things like compact storage or thrift. Fine great. But what is the realistic update path for someone. If the big players are running 2.1 and maintaining backports, the average shop without a dedicated team is going to be stuck saying (great features in 4.0 that improve performance, i would probably switch but its not stable and we have that one compact storage cf and who knows what is going to happen performance wise when) We really need to lose this realease wont be stable for 6 minor versions concept. On Saturday, November 19, 2016, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Friday, November 18, 2016, Jeff Jirsa <jeff.ji...@crowdstrike.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jeff.ji...@crowdstrike.com');>> wrote: > >> We should assume that we’re ditching tick/tock. I’ll post a thread on >> 4.0-and-beyond here in a few minutes. >> >> The advantage of a prod release every 6 months is fewer incentive to push >> unfinished work into a release. >> The disadvantage of a prod release every 6 months is then we either have >> a very short lifespan per-release, or we have to maintain lots of active >> releases. >> >> 2.1 has been out for over 2 years, and a lot of people (including us) are >> running it in prod – if we have a release every 6 months, that means we’d >> be supporting 4+ releases at a time, just to keep parity with what we have >> now? Maybe that’s ok, if we’re very selective about ‘support’ for 2+ year >> old branches. >> >> >> On 11/18/16, 3:10 PM, "beggles...@apple.com on behalf of Blake >> Eggleston" <beggles...@apple.com> wrote: >> >> >> While stability is important if we push back large "core" changes >> until later we're just setting ourselves up to face the same issues later on >> > >> >In theory, yes. In practice, when incomplete features are earmarked for >> a certain release, those features are often rushed out, and not always >> fully baked. >> > >> >In any case, I don’t think it makes sense to spend too much time >> planning what goes into 4.0, and what goes into the next major release with >> so many release strategy related decisions still up in the air. Are we >> going to ditch tick-tock? If so, what will it’s replacement look like? >> Specifically, when will the next “production” release happen? Without >> knowing that, it's hard to say if something should go in 4.0, or 4.5, or >> 5.0, or whatever. >> > >> >The reason I suggested a production release every 6 months is because >> (in my mind) it’s frequent enough that people won’t be tempted to rush >> features to hit a given release, but not so frequent that it’s not >> practical to support. It wouldn’t be the end of the world if some of these >> tickets didn’t make it into 4.0, because 4.5 would fine. >> > >> >On November 18, 2016 at 1:57:21 PM, kurt Greaves (k...@instaclustr.com) >> wrote: >> > >> >On 18 November 2016 at 18:25, Jason Brown <jasedbr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> #11559 (enhanced node representation) - decided it's *not* something we >> >> need wrt #7544 storage port configurable per node, so we are punting on >> >> >> > >> >#12344 - Forward writes to replacement node with same address during >> replace >> >depends on #11559. To be honest I'd say #12344 is pretty important, >> >otherwise it makes it difficult to replace nodes without potentially >> >requiring client code/configuration changes. It would be nice to get >> #12344 >> >in for 4.0. It's marked as an improvement but I'd consider it a bug and >> >thus think it could be included in a later minor release. >> > >> >Introducing all of these in a single release seems pretty risky. I think >> it >> >> would be safer to spread these out over a few 4.x releases (as they’re >> >> finished) and give them time to stabilize before including them in an >> LTS >> >> release. The downside would be having to maintain backwards >> compatibility >> >> across the 4.x versions, but that seems preferable to delaying the >> release >> >> of 4.0 to include these, and having another big bang release. >> > >> > >> >I don't think anyone expects 4.0.0 to be stable. It's a major version >> >change with lots of new features; in the production world people don't >> >normally move to a new major version until it has been out for quite some >> >time and several minor releases have passed. Really, most people are only >> >migrating to 3.0.x now. While stability is important if we push back >> large >> >"core" changes until later we're just setting ourselves up to face the >> same >> >issues later on. There should be enough uptake on the early releases of >> 4.0 >> >from new users to help test and get it to a production-ready state. >> > >> > >> >Kurt Greaves >> >k...@instaclustr.com >> >> > I don't think anyone expects 4.0.0 to be stable > > Someone previously described 3.0 as the "break everything release". > > We know that many people are still 2.1 and 3.0. Cassandra will always be > maintaining 3 or 4 active branches and have adoption issues if releases are > not stable and usable. > > Being that cassandra was 1.0 years ago I expect things to be stable. Half > working features , or added this broke that are not appealing to me. > > > > -- > Sorry this was sent from mobile. Will do less grammar and spell check than > usual. > -- Sorry this was sent from mobile. Will do less grammar and spell check than usual.
