It was more that I felt bad about raining on the parade, than worried about other reactions :)
It's good to hear that there is some confidence from folks that one of the issues is potentially resolvable outside of this vote. If we could tidy up the others quickly (I'm happy to submit a PR for anything that is outstanding) I'm ready to jump on board the train! On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:51 AM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > I hate that I need to voice this opinion, … > > I think it is wonderful that you do! There needs to be more of this, > without fear :-) > > > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but a RC is something that could be > a > > GA release and due to the outstanding issues we don't meet that criteria. > > Irrespective of how those issues get resolved. > > > > > I do not believe we relabel RC releases into GA releases. A new release is > cut and voted on for the GA. Interestingly, the main issue at hand could be > addressed in the release scripts, so the exact same SHA of 4.0-rc1 could in > theory be cut into a GA release. (Though it looks like CASSANDRA-16391 is > feasible.) And we are not looking at impacting QA or touching any > compatibility aspect of the code. > -- Ben Bromhead Instaclustr | www.instaclustr.com | @instaclustr <http://twitter.com/instaclustr> | +64 27 383 8975
