So, if it helps matters: I am explicitly -1 the prior version of this work due
to the technical concerns expressed here and on the ticket. So we either need
to revert that patch or incorporate 15299.
On 16/06/2020, 21:48, "Mick Semb Wever" <m...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> 2) Alternatively, it's been 3 years, 4 months, 13 days since the release
of
> 3.10.0 (the last time we added new features to the DB)
>
We did tick-tock, pushing feature releases too quickly, and without
supporting them for long enough to get stable. And then we've done "a la no
feature releases" for over 3 years. It feels like the bar went from too low
to too high.
I understand the importance of CASSANDRA-15299. But it hasn't had any
comments in 12 twelve days, and in this stage of the feature freeze, with
so few alpha bugs remaining, that's a long time. Sam, can you speak to its
eta?
> 4) If we plan on releasing 4.1 six months after the release of 4.0 (i.e.
> calender scope vs. feature scope - not yet agreed upon but an option),
I like this. I think it's worth appreciating the different perspectives of
this community: those involved with private clusters that don't rely on
official releases, versus those involved with the public and other people's
clusters. The latter group needs those official releases much more, but
this also ties into putting those users more in focus and figuring out
where the bar best sits. This isn't meant to divide, we all care and voice
for the user, but just to utilise the different strengths brought to the
table.
> If we want 4.0.0 out faster, the biggest gains would be to get the test
plans written up and get more people working on automated testing.
Yes, 110%. Though, as long as this continues to improve, as it has, does
it need to be a blocker on 4.0?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
