CEP-7 Storage Attached Index is in review with ~430 files and ~70k
LOC. The bulk of the project is in 3 main patches. The first patch
(in-memory index and query path) is merged to the feature branch
CASSANDRA-16052 and the second patch (on-disk write and literal /
string index) is in review.
Mike
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 09:13, Branimir Lambov <blam...@apache.org> wrote:
CEPs 25 (trie-indexed sstables) and 26 (unified compaction
strategy) should both be ready for review by mid-April.
Both are around 10k LOC, fairly isolated, and in need of a
committer to review.
Regards,
Branimir
On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 11:25 AM Benjamin Lerer <b.le...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Sorry, I realized that when I started the discussion I
probably did not frame it enough as I see that it is now going
into different directions.
The concerns I am seeing are:
1) A too small amount of time between releases is inefficient
from a development perspective and from a user perspective.
From a development point of view because we are missing time
to deliver some features. From a user perspective because they
cannot follow with the upgrade.
2) Some features are so anticipated (Accord being the one
mentioned) that people would prefer to delay the release to
make sure that it is available as soon as possible.
3) We do not know how long we need to go from the freeze to
GA. We hope for 2 months but our last experience was 6 months.
So delaying the release could mean not releasing this year.
4) For people doing marketing it is really hard to promote a
product when you do not know when the release will come and
what features might be there.
All those concerns are probably even made worse by the fact
that we do not have a clear visibility on where we are.
Should we clarify that part first by getting an idea of the
status of the different CEPs and other big pieces of work?
From there we could agree on some timeline for the freeze. We
could then discuss how to make predictable the time from
freeze to GA.
Le sam. 4 mars 2023 à 18:14, Josh McKenzie
<jmcken...@apache.org> a écrit :
(for convenience sake, I'm referring to both Major and
Minor semver releases as "major" in this email)
The big feature from our perspective for 5.0 is ACCORD
(CEP-15) and I would advocate to delay until this has
sufficient quality to be in production.
This approach can be pretty unpredictable in this domain;
often unforeseen things come up in implementation that can
give you a long tail on something being production ready.
For the record - I don't intend to single Accord out /at
all/ on this front, quite the opposite given how much
rigor's gone into the design and implementation. I'm just
thinking from my personal experience: everything I've
worked on, overseen, or followed closely on this codebase
always has a few tricks up its sleeve along the way to
having edge-cases stabilized.
Much like on some other recent topics, I think there's a
nuanced middle ground where we take things on a
case-by-case basis. Some factors that have come up in this
thread that resonated with me:
For a given potential release date 'X':
1. How long has it been since the last release?
2. How long do we expect qualification to take from a
"freeze" (i.e. no new improvement or features, branch) point?
3. What body of merged production ready work is available?
4. What body of new work do we have high confidence will
be ready within Y time?
I think it's worth defining a loose "minimum bound and
upper bound" on release cycles we want to try and stick
with barring extenuating circumstances. For instance: try
not to release sooner than maybe 10 months out from a
prior major, and try not to release later than 18 months
out from a prior major. Make exceptions if truly
exceptional things land, are about to land, or bugs are
discovered around those boundaries.
Applying the above framework to what we have in flight,
our last release date, expectations on CI, etc - targeting
an early fall freeze (pending CEP status) and mid to late
fall or December release "feels right" to me.
With the exception, of course, that if something merges
earlier, is stable, and we feel is valuable enough to cut
a major based on that, we do it.
~Josh
On Fri, Mar 3, 2023, at 7:37 PM, German Eichberger via dev
wrote:
Hi,
We shouldn't release just for releases sake. Are there
enough new features and are they working well enough
(quality!).
The big feature from our perspective for 5.0 is ACCORD
(CEP-15) and I would advocate to delay until this has
sufficient quality to be in production.
Just because something is released doesn't mean anyone is
gonna use it. To add some operator perspective: Every
time there is a new release we need to decide
1) are we supporting it
2) which other release can we deprecate
and potentially migrate people - which is also a tough
sell if there are no significant features and/or breaking
changes. So from my perspective less frequent releases
are better - after all we haven't gotten around to
support 4.1 🙂
The 5.0 release is also coupled with deprecating 3.11
which is what a significant amount of people are using -
given 4.1 took longer I am not sure how many people are
assuming that 5 will be delayed and haven't made plans
(OpenJDK support for 8 is longer than Java 17 🙂) . So
being a bit more deliberate with releasing 5.0 and having
a longer beta phase are all things we should consider.
My 2cts,
German
*From:* Benedict <bened...@apache.org>
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 1, 2023 5:59 AM
*To:* dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org>
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] Next release date
It doesn’t look like we agreed to a policy of annual
branch dates, only annual releases and that we would
schedule this for 4.1 based on 4.0’s branch date. Given
this was the reasoning proposed I can see why folk would
expect this would happen for the next release. I don’t
think there was a strong enough commitment here to be
bound by, it if we think different maths would work better.
I recall the goal for an annual cadence was to ensure we
don’t have lengthy periods between releases like 3.x to
4.0, and to try to reduce the pressure certain
contributors might feel to hit a specific release with a
given feature.
I think it’s better to revisit these underlying reasons
and check how they apply than to pick a mechanism and
stick to it too closely.
The last release was quite recent, so we aren’t at risk
of slow releases here. Similarly, there are some features
that the *project* would probably benefit from landing
prior to release, if this doesn’t push release back too far.
On 1 Mar 2023, at 13:38, Mick Semb Wever
<m...@apache.org> wrote:
My thoughts don't touch on CEPs inflight.
For the sake of broadening the discussion, additional
questions I think worthwhile to raise are…
1. What third parties, or other initiatives, are
invested and/or working against the May deadline? and
what are their views on changing it?
1a. If we push branching back to September, how
confident are we that we'll get to GA before the
December Summit?
2. What CEPs look like not landing by Maythat we
consider a must-have this year?
2a. Is it just tail-end commits in those CEPs that won't
make it? Can these land (withor without a waiver) during
the alpha phase?
2b. If the final components to specified CEPs are not
approved/appropriate to land during alpha, would it be
better if the project commits to a one-off half-year
release later in the year?
--
DataStax Logo Square <https://www.datastax.com/> *Mike Adamson*
Engineering
+1 650 389 6000 <tel:16503896000>|datastax.com
<https://www.datastax.com/>
Find DataStax Online: LinkedIn Logo
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_datastax&d=DwMFaQ&c=adz96Xi0w1RHqtPMowiL2g&r=IFj3MdIKYLLXIUhYdUGB0cTzTlxyCb7_VUmICBaYilU&m=uHzE4WhPViSF0rsjSxKhfwGDU1Bo7USObSc_aIcgelo&s=akx0E6l2bnTjOvA-YxtonbW0M4b6bNg4nRwmcHNDo4Q&e=>
Facebook Logo
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_datastax&d=DwMFaQ&c=adz96Xi0w1RHqtPMowiL2g&r=IFj3MdIKYLLXIUhYdUGB0cTzTlxyCb7_VUmICBaYilU&m=uHzE4WhPViSF0rsjSxKhfwGDU1Bo7USObSc_aIcgelo&s=ncMlB41-6hHuqx-EhnM83-KVtjMegQ9c2l2zDzHAxiU&e=>
Twitter Logo <https://twitter.com/DataStax> RSS Feed
<https://www.datastax.com/blog/rss.xml> Github Logo
<https://github.com/datastax>
