Potential compromise: We change it in trunk, and we NEWS.txt in the minor about that change in trunk, why, and recommend users consider qualifying the same change on their 4.1 release.
In case it's not clear from me: +1 to changing on trunk for 5.0 here -1 to changing on minor release given how little (i.e. nonexistent) perf testing we have on the OSS project right now. On Thu, Jan 12, 2023, at 11:47 AM, Paulo Motta wrote: > I tend to agree with Aleksey's sentiment. Why do we need to change the > default in a minor release if we already provide G1 options for users that > want to opt-in? > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 9:46 AM Aleksey Yeshchenko <alek...@apple.com> wrote: >> Switching a major default in a minor release is way worse than doing it in a >> GA - less notice and visibility, many folks don’t even read minor version >> NEWS.txt before upgrading. >> >> Trunk is fine by me though. >> >> > On 12 Jan 2023, at 13:14, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> >> Ok, wrt G1 default, this is won't go ahead for 4.1-rc1 >> >> >> >> We can revisit it for 4.1.x >> >> >> >> We have a lot of voices here adamantly positive for it, and those of us >> >> that have done the performance testing over the years know why. But being >> >> called to prove it is totally valid, if you have data to any such tests >> >> please add them to the ticket 18027 >> > >> > >> > Revisiting. Are there any vetoes to making G1 the default (and >> > updating the G1 settings, see the patch on >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18027 ) for 4.1.1 ? >> > >> > IIUC , the summary of this thread till now was: there were no vetoes >> > to the change in trunk, but there were vetoes to 4.1.0 (because we >> > were inside the beta to GA window), and there was a desire to have >> > benchmarking data presented. >> > >> > WRT benchmarking, we have a separate thread for performance testing in >> > the project. The ticket admittedly does not do its due diligence on >> > data presentation and analysis of smaller heaps: a precedent we should >> > be creating; but instead relies upon experience from many. Are we ok >> > with this this time around, or shall the patch only be applied to >> > trunk (where we have no choice w/ jdk17 landing)? >>
