The only additional tickets I'd like to mention are: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13971 - Automatic certificate management using Vault - Stefan's Vault integration work. A sub-ticket, CASSANDRA-14102, addresses encryption at-rest, subsumes CASSANDRA-9633 (SSTable encryption) - which I doubt I would be able to get to any time this year. It would definitely be nice to have a clarified encryption/security story for 4.0.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11990 - Address rows rather than partitions in SASI - a nice update for SASI, but not critical. -Jason On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 6:53 PM, Ben Bromhead <b...@instaclustr.com> wrote: > Apologies all, I didn't realize I was responding to this discussion only on > the @user list. One of the perils of responding to a thread that is on both > user and dev... > > For context, I have included my response to Kurt's previous discussion on > this topic as it only ended up on the user list. > > *After some further discussions with folks offline, I'd like to revive this > discussion. * > > *As Kurt mentioned, to keep it simple I if we can simply build consensus > around what is in for 4.0 and what is out. We can then start the process of > working off a 4.0 branch towards betas and release candidates. Again as > Kurt mentioned, assigning a timeline to it right now is difficult, but > having a firm line in the sand around what features/patches are in, then > limiting future 4.0 work to bug fixes will give folks a less nebulous > target to work on. * > > *The other thing to mention is that once we have a 4.0 branch to work off, > we at Instaclustr have a commitment to dogfooding the release candidates on > our internal staging and internal production workloads before 4.0 becomes > generally available. I know other folks have similar commitments and simply > having a 4.0 branch with a clear list of things that are in or out will > allow everyone to start testing and driving towards a quality release. * > > *The other thing is that there are already a large number of changes ready > for 4.0, I would suggest not recommending tickets for 4.0 that have not yet > been finished/have outstanding work unless you are the person working on it > (or are offering to work on it instead) and can get it ready for review in > a timely fashion. That way we can build a more realistic working target. > For other major breaking changes, there is always 5.0 or 4.1 or whatever we > end up doing :)* > > Thinking further about it, I would suggest a similar process that was > applied to releasing 3.0, in order to get to 4.0: > > - Clean up ticket labeling. Move tickets unlikely to make it / be worked > on for 4.0 to something else (e.g. 4.x or whatever). > - Tickets labeled 4.0 will be the line in the sand, with some trigger > ("done") event where all features not done by a certain event will > simply > move into the next release. For the 3.0 branch, this occurred after a > large review of 8099. For 4.0 it could simply be resolving all current > blockers/major tickets tagged 4.0... doesn't have to be / nor is it > something I would strongly advocate. > - Once we hit this "done" event. Cut a Cassandra-4.0 branch and start > the alpha/beta/rc cycle from that branch, with only bugfixes going into > it > - This, in my mind, is similar to the 3.0 approach > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cassandra-dev/ > 201503.mbox/%3CCALdd-zjAyiTbZksMeq2LxGwLF5LPhoi_ > 4vsjy8JBHBRnsxH%3D8A%40mail.gmail.com%3E, > but without the subsequent tick-tock :) > > There are currently 3 open blockers tagged 4.0, some are old and probably > not really blockers anymore, there are other tickets that may/should be > blockers on 4.0: > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951 > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994 > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12042 > > In terms of major tickets that I would like to see land: > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7622 Virtual Tables > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13628 Internode netty > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13475 Pluggable > Storage > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9633 SSTable > encryption > > Ben > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:26 PM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Advantages of cutting a release sooner than later: > > 1) The project needs to constantly progress forward. Releases are the > most > > visible part of that. > > 2) Having a huge changelog in a release increases the likelihood of bugs > > that take time to find. > > > > Advantages of a slower release: > > 1) We don't do major versions often, and when we do breaking changes > > (protocol, file format, etc), we should squeeze in as many as possible to > > avoid having to roll new majors > > 2) There are probably few people actually running 3.11 at scale, so > > probably few people actually testing trunk. > > > > In terms of "big" changes I'd like to see land, the ones that come to > mind > > are: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9754 - "Birch" (changes > > file format) > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13442 - Transient > > Replicas (probably adds new replication strategy or similar) > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13628 - Rest of the > > internode netty stuff (no idea if this changes internode stuff, but I bet > > it's a lot easier if it lands on a major) > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7622 - Virtual Tables > > (selfish inclusion, probably doesn't need to be a major at all, and I > > wouldn't even lose sleep if it slips, but I'd like to see it land) > > > > Stuff I'm ok with slipping to 4.X or 5.0, but probably needs to land on a > > major because we'll change something big (like gossip, or the way schema > is > > passed, etc): > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9667 - Strongly > > consistent membership > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10699 - Strongly > > consistent schema > > > > All that said, what I really care about is building confidence in the > > release, which means an extended testing cycle. If all of those patches > > landed tomorrow, I'd still expect us to be months away from a release, > > because we need to bake the next major - there's too many changes to > throw > > out an alpha/beta/rc and hope someone actually runs it. > > > > I don't believe Q3/Q4 is realistic, but I may be biased (or jaded). It's > > possible Q3/Q4 alpha/beta is realistic, but definitely not a release. > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 8:29 PM, kurt greaves <k...@instaclustr.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi friends, > >> *TL;DR: Making a plan for 4.0, ideally everyone interested should > provide > >> up to two lists, one for tickets they can contribute resources to > getting > >> finished, and one for features they think would be desirable for 4.0, > but > >> not necessarily have the resources to commit to helping with.* > >> > >> So we had that Roadmap for 4.0 discussion last year, but there was never > >> a conclusion or a plan that came from it. Times getting on and the > changes > >> list for 4.0 is getting pretty big. I'm thinking it would probably make > >> sense to define some goals to getting 4.0 released/have an actual plan. > 4.0 > >> is already going to be quite an unwieldy release with a lot of testing > >> required. > >> > >> Note: the following is open to discussion, if people don't like the plan > >> feel free to speak up. But in the end it's a pretty basic plan and I > don't > >> think we should over-complicate it, I also don't want to end up in a > >> discussion where we "make a plan to make a plan". Regardless of whatever > >> plan we do end up following it would still be valuable to have a list of > >> tickets for 4.0 which is the overall goal of this email - so let's not > get > >> too worked up on the details just yet (save that for after I > >> summarise/follow up). > >> > >> // TODO > >> I think the best way to go about this would be for us to come up with a > >> list of JIRA's that we want included in 4.0, tag these as 4.0, and all > >> other improvements as 4.x. We can then aim to release 4.0 once all the > 4.0 > >> tagged tickets (+bug fixes/blockers) are complete. > >> > >> Now, the catch is that we obviously don't want to include too many > >> tickets in 4.0, but at the same time we want to make sure 4.0 has an > >> appealing feature set for both users/operators/developers. To minimise > >> scope creep I think the following strategy will help: > >> > >> We should maintain two lists: > >> > >> 1. JIRA's that people want in 4.0 and can commit resources to getting > >> them implemented in 4.0. > >> 2. JIRA's that people simply think would be desirable for 4.0, but > >> currently don't have anyone assigned to them or planned assignment. > It > >> would probably make sense to label these with an additional tag in > JIRA. *(User's > >> please feel free to point out what you want here)* > >> > >> From list 1 will come our source of truth for when we release 4.0. > (after > >> aggregating a list I will summarise and we can vote on it). > >> > >> List 2 would be the "hopeful" list, where stories can be picked up from > >> if resourcing allows, or where someone comes along and decides it's good > >> enough to work on. I guess we can also base this on a vote system if we > >> reach the point of including some of them. (but for the moment it's > purely > >> to get an idea of what users actually want). > >> > >> Please don't refrain from listing something that's already been > >> mentioned. The purpose is to get an idea of everyone's > priorities/interests > >> and the resources available. We will need multiple resources for each > >> ticket, so anywhere we share an interest will make for a lot easier work > >> sharing. > >> > >> Note that we are only talking about improvements here. Bugs will be > >> treated the same as always, and major issues/regressions we'll need to > fix > >> prior to 4.0 anyway. > >> > >> TIME FRAME > >> Generally I think it's a bad idea to commit to any hard deadline, but we > >> should have some time frames in mind. My idea would be to aim for a Q3/4 > >> 2018 release, and as we go we just review the outstanding improvements > and > >> decide whether it's worth pushing it back or if we've got enough to > >> release. I suppose keep this time frame in mind when choosing your > tickets. > >> > >> We can aim for an earlier date (midyear?) but I figure the > >> testing/validation/bugfixing period prior to release might drag on a > bit so > >> being a bit conservative here. > >> The main goal would be to not let list 1 grow unless we're well ahead, > >> and only cull from it if we're heavily over-committed or we decide the > >> improvement can wait. I assume this all sounds like common sense but > >> figured it's better to spell it out now. > >> > >> > >> NEXT STEPS > >> After 2 weeks/whenever the discussion dies off I'll consolidate all the > >> tickets, relevant comments and follow up with a summary, where we can > >> discuss/nitpick issues and come up with a final list to go ahead with. > >> > >> On a side note, in conjunction with this effort we'll obviously have to > >> do something about validation and testing. I'll keep that out of this > email > >> for now, but there will be a follow up so that those of us willing to > help > >> validate/test trunk can avoid duplicating effort. > >> > >> REVIEW > >> This is the list of "huge/breaking" tickets that got mentioned in the > >> last roadmap discussion and their statuses. This is not terribly > important > >> but just so we can keep in mind what we previously talked about. I > think we > >> leave it up to the relevant contributors to decide whether they want to > get > >> the still open tickets into 4.0. > >> > >> CASSANDRA-9425 Immutable node-local schema > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9425> - Committed > >> CASSANDRA-10699 Strongly consistent schema alterations > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10699> - Open, no > >> discussion in quite some time. > >> CASSANDRA-12229 NIO streaming > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12229> - Committed > >> CASSANDRA-8457 NIO messaging > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8457> - Committed > >> CASSANDRA-12345 Gossip 2.0 > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12345> - Open, no sign > >> of any action. > >> CASSANDRA-9754 Make index info heap friendly for large CQL partitions > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9754> - In progress > but > >> no update in a long time. > >> CASSANDRA-11559 enhanced node representation > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11559> - Open, no > >> change since early 2016. > >> CASSANDRA-6246 epaxos > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6246> - In progress > but > >> no update since Feb 2017. > >> CASSANDRA-7544 storage port configurable per node > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7544> - Committed > >> CASSANDRA-11115 remove thrift support > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11115> - Committed > >> CASSANDRA-10857 dropping compact storage > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10857> - Committed > >> > >> To start us off... > >> And here are my lists to get us started. > >> 1. > >> CASSANDRA-8460 - Tiered/Cold storage for TWCS > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8460> > >> CASSANDRA-12783 - Batchlog redesign > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12783> > >> CASSANDRA-11559 - Enchance node representation > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11559> > >> CASSANDRA-12344 - Forward writes to replacement node with same > >> address <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12344> > >> CASSANDRA-8119 - More expressive Consistency Levels > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8119> > >> CASSANDRA-14210 - Optimise SSTables upgrade task scheduling > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14210> > >> CASSANDRA-10540 - RangeAwareCompaction > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10540> > >> > >> > >> 2: > >> CASSANDRA-10726 - Read repair inserts should not be blocking > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10726> > >> CASSANDRA-9754 - Make index info heap friendly for large CQL partitions > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9754> > >> CASSANDRA-12294 - LDAP auth > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12294> > >> CASSANDRA-12151 - Audit logging > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12151> > >> CASSANDRA-10495 - Fix streaming with vnodes > >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10495> > >> > >> Also, here's some handy JQL to start you off: > >> project = CASSANDRA AND fixVersion in (4.x, 4.0) AND issue in > >> watchedIssues() AND status != Resolved > >> > >> > > -- > Ben Bromhead > CTO | Instaclustr <https://www.instaclustr.com/> > +1 650 284 9692 > Reliability at Scale > Cassandra, Spark, Elasticsearch on AWS, Azure, GCP and Softlayer >
