The link is fixed. Thanks! ________________________________________ From: Miklosovic, Stefan <stefan.mikloso...@netapp.com> Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:42 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)
I can't view it either. ________________________________________ From: guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:40 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2) NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Do I need permission to view this link? When I open it, an error appears, saying “It may have been deleted or you don't have permission to view it.” Benjamin Lerer <b.le...@gmail.com<mailto:b.le...@gmail.com>> 于2023年11月6日周一 18:34写道： I created a Dashboard to track the progress and remaining tasks for 5.0: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=593<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fsecure%2FRapidBoard.jspa%3FrapidView%3D593&data=05%7C01%7CStefan.Miklosovic%40netapp.com%7C83db318dc59d4ace3ded08dbdeb4d68b%7C4b0911a0929b4715944bc03745165b3a%7C0%7C0%7C638348640501244920%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=aDmFrtaDdB0F4kEG%2BHbBiF52VHTvrEdIwL2RUQXX%2FbY%3D&reserved=0> Everybody logged in should have access. Ping me if it is not the case. Le sam. 4 nov. 2023 à 19:54, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org<mailto:m...@apache.org>> a écrit : Please mark such bugs with fixVersion 5.0-beta If there are no more tickets that need API changes (i.e. those that should be marked fixVersion 5.0-alpha) this then indicates we do not need a 5.0-alpha3 release and can focus towards 5.0-beta1 (regardless of having blockers open to it). Appreciate the attention 18993 is getting – we do have a shortlist of beta blockers that we gotta prioritise ! On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 18:33, Benedict <bened...@apache.org<mailto:bened...@apache.org>> wrote: Yep, data loss bugs are not any old bug. I’m concretely -1 (binding) releasing a beta with one that’s either under investigation or confirmed. As Scott says, hopefully it won’t come to that - the joy of deterministic testing is this should be straightforward to triage. On 4 Nov 2023, at 17:30, C. Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net<mailto:sc...@paradoxica.net>> wrote: I’d happily be the first to vote -1(nb) on a release containing a known and reproducible bug that can result in data loss or an incorrect response to a query. And I certainly wouldn’t run it. Since we have a programmatic repro within just a few seconds, this should not take long to root-cause. On Friday, Alex worked to get this reproducing on a Cassandra branch rather than via unstaged changes. We should have a published / shareable example with details near the beginning of the week. – Scott On Nov 4, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org<mailto:jmcken...@apache.org>> wrote: I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 (assuming it is a bug). Before a beta? I could see that for rc or GA definitely, but having a known (especially non-regressive) data loss bug in a beta seems like it's compatible with the guarantees we're providing for it: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcwiki.apache.org%2Fconfluence%2Fdisplay%2FCASSANDRA%2FRelease%2BLifecycle&data=05%7C01%7CStefan.Miklosovic%40netapp.com%7C83db318dc59d4ace3ded08dbdeb4d68b%7C4b0911a0929b4715944bc03745165b3a%7C0%7C0%7C638348640501244920%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lfB59qRc64YbPS9vGECYUYm4j2YHtwMQNe%2FiqafSQTk%3D&reserved=0> This release is recommended for test/QA clusters where short(order of minutes) downtime during upgrades is not an issue On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a priority in any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned on the ticket. Thanks to Alex for his work on harry! On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict <bened...@apache.org<mailto:bened...@apache.org>> wrote: Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0, but either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential known issue. > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan > <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com<mailto:jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as well? > So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a new 4.1.x > released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if we have a > “data not being returned” issue in an existing release? > >> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict >> <bened...@apache.org<mailto:bened...@apache.org>> wrote: >> >> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 >> (assuming it is a bug). >> >>>> On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever >>>> <m...@apache.org<mailto:m...@apache.org>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> With the publication of this release I would like to switch the >>>> default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0. Are there any >>>> objections to this ? >>> >>> >>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1 >>> >>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we >>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and >>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec. >>> >>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually >>> commit to. But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing >>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to >>> make it happen. >>
