Maybe. Do we just time box, say we're going to cut an RC and give it 4 weeks, if nothing awful surfaces we GA?
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 4:12 PM Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > >
