Absolutely my understanding. On Wed, May 27, 2020, 2:49 PM Jeremiah D Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A clear point to cut RC's doesn't surface from the above for me. > Releasing > > an RC before broad verification seems wrong, and cutting an RC after the > 4 > > points above may as well be GA because it's all known scope. > > Isn’t the whole point of an RC is that it could be the GA? It is a > “release candidate”, meaning if no one finds any issues with it, that can > them become the release? So that seems like exactly the right time to make > RC releases? > > > On May 27, 2020, at 2:45 PM, Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > I think we're all on the same page here; I was focusing more on the > release > > lifecycles and sequencing than the entire version cycle. Good to broaden > > scope I think. > > > > One thing we're not considering is the separation of API changes from > major > > changes and how that intersects with release milestones. > > > > Meaning: > > 1. alpha phase > > 2. Milestone: API freeze (all API changes pushed to next major) > > 3. beta phase > > 4. Verification phase (all major disruptive pushed to next major) > > > > A clear point to cut RC's doesn't surface from the above for me. > Releasing > > an RC before broad verification seems wrong, and cutting an RC after the > 4 > > points above may as well be GA because it's all known scope. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:28 PM Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net> > wrote: > > > >> That makes sense to me, yep. > >> > >> My hope and expectation is that the time required for "verification > work" > >> will shrink dramatically in the not too distant future - ideally to a > >> period of less than a month. In this world, the cost of missing one > train > >> is reduced to catching the next one. > >> > >> One of the main goals in shifting focus from "testing" and "test plans" > to > >> "test engineering" is automating as many aspects of release > qualification > >> as possible, with an asymptotic ideal as a function of compute capacity > and > >> time. While such automation will never be complete (it's likely that > >> development of new features will/must include qualification infra > changes > >> to exercise them), if we're able to apply the same rigor to major > releases > >> as we are to patchlevel builds with little incremental effort, I'd be > >> thrilled. > >> > >> This is mostly a way of saying: > >> – I like the cadence/sequencing Benedict proposes below. > >> – I think improvements in test engineering can reduce/eliminate > >> invalidation and may increase the scope of what can be a candidate for > >> merge on a given branch > >> – And if not, the cost of missing the train is lower because we'll be > able > >> to deliver major releases more often. > >> > >> Scott > >> > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: Jeremiah D Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 11:54 AM > >> To: Cassandra DEV > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-13994 > >> > >> +1 strongly agree. If we aren’t going to let something go into 4.0.0 > >> because it would "invalidate testing” then we can not let such a thing > go > >> into 4.0.1 unless we plan to re-do said testing for the patch release. > >> > >>> On May 27, 2020, at 1:31 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith < > bened...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> I'm being told this still isn't clear, so let me try in a bullet-point > >> timeline: > >>> > >>> * 4.0 Beta > >>> * 4.0 Verification Work > >>> * [Merge Window] > >>> * 4.0 GA > >>> * 4.0 Minor Releases > >>> * ... > >>> * 5.0 Dev > >>> * ... > >>> * 5.0 Verification Work > >>> * GA 5.0 > >>> > >>> I think that anything that is prohibited from "[Merge Window]" because > >> it invalidates "4.0 Verification Work" must also be prohibited until > "5.0 > >> Dev" because the next equivalent work that can now validate it occurs > only > >> at "5.0 Verification Work" > >>> > >>> On 27/05/2020, 19:05, "Benedict Elliott Smith" <bened...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> I'm not sure if I communicated my point very well. I mean to say > >> that if the reason we are prohibiting a patch to land post-beta is > because > >> it invalidates work we only perform pre-ga, then it probably should not > be > >> permitted to land post-ga either, since it must also invalidate the same > >> work? > >>> > >>> That is to say, if we're comfortable with work landing post-ga > >> because we believe it to be safe to release without our > pre-major-release > >> verification, we should be comfortable with it landing at any time > pre-ga > >> too. Anything else seems inconsistent to me, and we should examine what > >> assumptions we're making that permit this inconsistency to arise. > >>> > >>> > >>> On 27/05/2020, 18:49, "Joshua McKenzie" <jmcken...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> because it invalidates our pre-release verification, then it should > not > >>>> land > >>> > >>> until we next perform pre-release verification > >>> > >>> At least for me there's a little softness around our collective > >> alignment > >>> on when pre-release verification takes place. If it's between > >> alpha-1 and > >>> ga we don't want changes that would invalidate those changes to > >> land during > >>> that time frame. Different for beta-1 to ga. We also risk > >> invalidating > >>> testing if we do any of that testing before wherever that cutoff > >> is, and a > >>> lack of clarity on that cutoff further muddies those waters. > >>> > >>> My very loosely held perspective is that beta-1 to ga is the > >> window in > >>> which we apply the "don't do things that will invalidate > >> verification", and > >>> we plan to do that verification during the beta phase. I *think* > >> this is > >>> consistent w/the current framing of the lifecycle doc. That being > >> said, I > >>> don't have strong religion on this so if we collectively want to > >> call it > >>> "don't majorly disrupt from alpha-1 to ga", we can formalize that > >> in the > >>> docs and go ahead and triage current open scope for 4.0 and move > >> things out. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:59 PM Ekaterina Dimitrova < > >>> ekaterina.dimitr...@datastax.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Thank you all for your input. > >>>> I think an important topic is again to revise the lifecycle and ensure > >> we > >>>> really have the vision on what is left until beta. I will start a > >> separate > >>>> thread on the flaky tests situation soon. > >>>> > >>>> For this particular ticket I see a couple of things: > >>>> - There are a lot of deletions of already not used code > >>>> - I implemented it still in alpha as per our agreement that this will > >> give > >>>> us enough time for testing. Probably Dinesh as a reviewer can give > some > >>>> valuable feedback/opinion on the patch. > >>>> - It definitely touches around important places but the important > thing > >> is > >>>> to see how exactly it touches, I think > >>>> - Considering it for alpha before the major testing in beta sounds > >>>> reasonable to me but I guess it also depends on people availability to > >>>> review it in detail and the exact test plans afterwards > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 7:14, Benedict Elliott Smith < > >> bened...@apache.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I think our "pre-beta" criteria should also be our "not in a major" > >>>>> criteria. > >>>>> > >>>>> If work is prohibited because it invalidates our pre-release > >>>> verification, > >>>>> then it should not land until we next perform pre-release > verification, > >>>>> which only currently happens once per major. > >>>>> > >>>>> This could mean either landing less in a major, or permitting more in > >>>> beta > >>>>> etc. > >>>>> > >>>>> On 26/05/2020, 19:24, "Joshua McKenzie" <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I think an interesting question that informs when to stop accepting > >>>>> specific changes in a release is when we expect any extensive > >>>>> pre-release > >>>>> testing to take place. > >>>>> > >>>>> If we go by our release lifecycle, gutting deprecated code seems > >>>>> compatible > >>>>> w/Alpha but I wouldn't endorse merging it into Beta: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle > . > >>>>> Since almost all of the 40_quality_testing epic stuff is also beta > >>>>> phase > >>>>> and hasn't really taken off yet, it also seems like there will be > >>>>> extensive > >>>>> testing after this phase transition. > >>>>> > >>>>> All that being said, I'd advocate for marking FixVer 4.x to > indicate > >>>>> optionality and disallow merge of tickets like this after we're > done > >>>>> w/alpha phase in keeping w/our lifecycle doc in general. > >>>>> > >>>>> Does that make sense? Should we consider revisiting and revising > the > >>>>> lifecycle doc re: larger deprecation / changes and cycle stages? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:53 PM Oleksandr Petrov < > >>>>> oleksandr.pet...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> 1) Would you block the release over this ticket? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I would definitely not block the release on this ticket. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2) Would you prioritize this ticket over testing? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Same here, I would prioritise testing. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 3) Does fixing this ticket make 4.0 a more stable release? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I wanted to give some context: I wrote that in August 2018. While I > >>>>> still > >>>>>> believe it is important to get rid of this code, I'm disinclined to > >>>>> merge > >>>>>> it into 4.0. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Given that the patch is rather big (421 additions and 1,480 > >>>>> deletions) and > >>>>>> touches many important places, including parser, I would be > >>>> extremely > >>>>>> cautious to merge it that late in release cycle. It would be great > >>>>> to also > >>>>>> hear arguments that would justify the risk. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thank you for starting this discussion, > >>>>>> -- Alex > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:20 PM Ekaterina Dimitrova < > >>>>>> ekaterina.dimitr...@datastax.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Dear all, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Following the ticket review sent on 12th May I wanted to bring up > >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994: Remove > >>>>> COMPACT > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> STORAGE internals before 4.0 release. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It is already under review by Dinesh Joshi and Alex Petrov. Not a > >>>>>>> blocker but already under review. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Below are my responses to the questions brought up. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1) Would you block the release over this > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ticket? - probably not > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 2) Would you prioritize this ticket over testing? - already > >>>>>>> implemented but if there are some big changes needed after the > >>>>> review, > >>>>>>> I doubt it we will want to prioritize over the testing > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 3) Does fixing > >>>>>>> this ticket make 4.0 a more stable release? - I will just cite > >>>> Alex > >>>>>>> Petrov who reported this Jira and I think the rest of us would > >>>>> agree > >>>>>>> with him here. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "I would say it's quite important to clean up compact storage > >>>>>>> internals in 4.0 before the release. It should have no visible > >>>>>>> side-effects, but it'd be very good to have as it simplifies > >>>>> multiple > >>>>>>> code paths." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ekaterina Dimitrova > >>>>>>> e. ekaterina.dimitr...@datastax.com > >>>>>>> w. www.datastax.com > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> alex p > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
