Sorry for that. It should be fixed for everybody now. Le lun. 6 nov. 2023 à 11:43, Miklosovic, Stefan via dev < dev@cassandra.apache.org> a écrit :
> 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. > >> > >
