I personally prefer to track fail/flaky tests as sub-issue of the 4.0 epic > (CASSANDRA-15536) so we can track 4.0 completion status in a single place. > > The way I see it is: > * CASSANDRA-15536 epic: track everything that needs to be done to wrap-up > 4.0 per macro component. >
Isn't this hi-jacking the meaning (and value) of the "4.0-beta" and "4.0-rc" fixVersion placeholders? My understanding is that nothing should be set to fixVersion "4.0-beta" if it is not a blocker to 4.0-rc. And likewise nothing is set to "4.0-rc" unless it is a blocker to 4.0-GA. i.e. these were not wishlist placeholders. Of course folk are still free to "scratch their itch" and review and merge the non-blocker bugs from "4.x", so long as all release lifecycle concerns are met. Kinda agree with Josh here on what the epics should focus on. Personally, because that better isolates and highlights what's missing from continuous and automated QA post-4.0, looping back to my first question and concern.
