Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0

[jason zhao yang]

Hi,

Will we still use tick-tock release for 4.x and 4.0.x ?

Stefan Podkowinski 于2016年11月16日周三 下午4:52写道：

> From my understanding, this will also effect EOL dates of other branches.
>
> "We will maintain the 2.2 stability series until 4.0 is released, and 3.0
> for six months after that.".
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nate McCall  wrote:
>
> > Agreed. As long as we have a goal I don't see why we have to adhere to
> > arbitrary date for 4.0.
> >
> > On Nov 16, 2016 1:45 PM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I’ll comment on the broader issue, but right now I want to elaborate on
> > > 3.11/January/arbitrary cutoff date.
> > >
> > > Doesn’t matter what the original plan was. We should continue with 3.X
> > > until all the 4.0 blockers have been
> > > committed - and there are quite a few of them remaining yet.
> > >
> > > So given all the holidays, and the tickets remaining, I’ll personally
> be
> > > surprised if 4.0 comes out before
> > > February/March and 3.13/3.14. Nor do I think it’s an issue.
> > >
> > > —
> > > AY
> > >
> > > On 16 November 2016 at 00:39:03, Mick Semb Wever (
> m...@thelastpickle.com
> > )
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 4 November 2016 at 13:47, Nate McCall  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Specifically, this should be "new stuff that could/will break things"
> > > > given we are upping
> > > > the major version.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > How does this co-ordinate with the tick-tock versioning¹ leading up to
> > the
> > > 4.0 release?
> > >
> > > To just stop tick-tock and then say yeehaa let's jam in all the
> breaking
> > > changes we really want seems to be throwing away some of the learnt
> > wisdom,
> > > and not doing a very sane transition from tick-tock to
> > > features/testing/stable². I really hope all this is done in a way that
> > > continues us down the path towards a stable-master.
> > >
> > > For example, are we fixing the release of 4.0 to November? or
> continuing
> > > tick-tocks until we complete the 4.0 roadmap? or starting the
> > > features/testing/stable branching approach with 3.11?
> > >
> > >
> > > Background:
> > > ¹) Sylvain wrote in an earlier thread titled "A Home for 4.0"
> > >
> > > > And as 4.0 was initially supposed to come after 3.11, which is
> coming,
> > > it's probably time to have a home for those tickets.
> > >
> > > ²) The new versioning scheme slated for 4.0, per the "Proposal - 3.5.1"
> > > thread
> > >
> > > > three branch plan with “features”, “testing”, and “stable” starting
> > with
> > > 4.0?
> > >
> > >
> > > Mick
> > >
> >
>

Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.0.10 released

[Oleksandr Shulgin]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Michael Shuler 
wrote:
>
> The Cassandra team is pleased to announce the release of Apache
> Cassandra version 3.0.10.
>
> Apache Cassandra is a fully distributed database. It is the right choice
> when you need scalability and high availability without compromising
> performance.
>
>  http://cassandra.apache.org/
>
> Downloads of source and binary distributions are listed in our download
> section:
>
>  http://cassandra.apache.org/download/
>
> This version is a bug fix release[1] on the 3.0 series. As always,
> please pay attention to the release notes[2] and Let us know[3] if you
> were to encounter any problem.

Hello,

>From the NEWS file:

3.0.10
> =
> Upgrading
> -
>- memtable_allocation_type: offheap_buffers is no longer allowed to be
> specified in the 3.0 series.
>  This was an oversight that can cause segfaults. Offheap was
> re-introduced in 3.4 see CASSANDRA-11039
>  and CASSANDRA-9472 for details.


Does this mean that offheap_objects is still available or that there is no
longer support for offheap memtables in version 3.0?

--
Alex

Re: Board report and feedback from such.

[Eric Evans]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Ben Bromhead  wrote:
> Thanks Nate, this is great to see this get some visibility on a wider
> distribution list like dev!

Full ACK; Thanks for sending this to the list Nate!


-- 
Eric Evans
john.eric.ev...@gmail.com

Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0

[Jason Brown]

Jason,

That's a separate topic, but we will have a different vote on how the
branching/release strategy should be for the future.

On Thursday, November 17, 2016, jason zhao yang 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Will we still use tick-tock release for 4.x and 4.0.x ?
>
> Stefan Podkowinski >于2016年11月16日周三
> 下午4:52写道：
>
> > From my understanding, this will also effect EOL dates of other branches.
> >
> > "We will maintain the 2.2 stability series until 4.0 is released, and 3.0
> > for six months after that.".
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nate McCall  > wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed. As long as we have a goal I don't see why we have to adhere to
> > > arbitrary date for 4.0.
> > >
> > > On Nov 16, 2016 1:45 PM, "Aleksey Yeschenko"  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I’ll comment on the broader issue, but right now I want to elaborate
> on
> > > > 3.11/January/arbitrary cutoff date.
> > > >
> > > > Doesn’t matter what the original plan was. We should continue with
> 3.X
> > > > until all the 4.0 blockers have been
> > > > committed - and there are quite a few of them remaining yet.
> > > >
> > > > So given all the holidays, and the tickets remaining, I’ll personally
> > be
> > > > surprised if 4.0 comes out before
> > > > February/March and 3.13/3.14. Nor do I think it’s an issue.
> > > >
> > > > —
> > > > AY
> > > >
> > > > On 16 November 2016 at 00:39:03, Mick Semb Wever (
> > m...@thelastpickle.com 
> > > )
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 4 November 2016 at 13:47, Nate McCall  > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Specifically, this should be "new stuff that could/will break
> things"
> > > > > given we are upping
> > > > > the major version.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How does this co-ordinate with the tick-tock versioning¹ leading up
> to
> > > the
> > > > 4.0 release?
> > > >
> > > > To just stop tick-tock and then say yeehaa let's jam in all the
> > breaking
> > > > changes we really want seems to be throwing away some of the learnt
> > > wisdom,
> > > > and not doing a very sane transition from tick-tock to
> > > > features/testing/stable². I really hope all this is done in a way
> that
> > > > continues us down the path towards a stable-master.
> > > >
> > > > For example, are we fixing the release of 4.0 to November? or
> > continuing
> > > > tick-tocks until we complete the 4.0 roadmap? or starting the
> > > > features/testing/stable branching approach with 3.11?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Background:
> > > > ¹) Sylvain wrote in an earlier thread titled "A Home for 4.0"
> > > >
> > > > > And as 4.0 was initially supposed to come after 3.11, which is
> > coming,
> > > > it's probably time to have a home for those tickets.
> > > >
> > > > ²) The new versioning scheme slated for 4.0, per the "Proposal -
> 3.5.1"
> > > > thread
> > > >
> > > > > three branch plan with “features”, “testing”, and “stable” starting
> > > with
> > > > 4.0?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mick
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0

[Jonathan Haddad]

I think it might be worth considering adopting the release strategy before
4.0 release.  Are any PMC members putting tick tock in prod? Does anyone
even trust it?  What's the downside of changing the release cycle
independently from 4.0?

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM Jason Brown  wrote:

Jason,

That's a separate topic, but we will have a different vote on how the
branching/release strategy should be for the future.

On Thursday, November 17, 2016, jason zhao yang 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Will we still use tick-tock release for 4.x and 4.0.x ?
>
> Stefan Podkowinski >于2016年11月16日周三
> 下午4:52写道：
>
> > From my understanding, this will also effect EOL dates of other
branches.
> >
> > "We will maintain the 2.2 stability series until 4.0 is released, and
3.0
> > for six months after that.".
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nate McCall  > wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed. As long as we have a goal I don't see why we have to adhere to
> > > arbitrary date for 4.0.
> > >
> > > On Nov 16, 2016 1:45 PM, "Aleksey Yeschenko"  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I’ll comment on the broader issue, but right now I want to elaborate
> on
> > > > 3.11/January/arbitrary cutoff date.
> > > >
> > > > Doesn’t matter what the original plan was. We should continue with
> 3.X
> > > > until all the 4.0 blockers have been
> > > > committed - and there are quite a few of them remaining yet.
> > > >
> > > > So given all the holidays, and the tickets remaining, I’ll
personally
> > be
> > > > surprised if 4.0 comes out before
> > > > February/March and 3.13/3.14. Nor do I think it’s an issue.
> > > >
> > > > —
> > > > AY
> > > >
> > > > On 16 November 2016 at 00:39:03, Mick Semb Wever (
> > m...@thelastpickle.com 
> > > )
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 4 November 2016 at 13:47, Nate McCall  > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Specifically, this should be "new stuff that could/will break
> things"
> > > > > given we are upping
> > > > > the major version.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How does this co-ordinate with the tick-tock versioning¹ leading up
> to
> > > the
> > > > 4.0 release?
> > > >
> > > > To just stop tick-tock and then say yeehaa let's jam in all the
> > breaking
> > > > changes we really want seems to be throwing away some of the learnt
> > > wisdom,
> > > > and not doing a very sane transition from tick-tock to
> > > > features/testing/stable². I really hope all this is done in a way
> that
> > > > continues us down the path towards a stable-master.
> > > >
> > > > For example, are we fixing the release of 4.0 to November? or
> > continuing
> > > > tick-tocks until we complete the 4.0 roadmap? or starting the
> > > > features/testing/stable branching approach with 3.11?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Background:
> > > > ¹) Sylvain wrote in an earlier thread titled "A Home for 4.0"
> > > >
> > > > > And as 4.0 was initially supposed to come after 3.11, which is
> > coming,
> > > > it's probably time to have a home for those tickets.
> > > >
> > > > ²) The new versioning scheme slated for 4.0, per the "Proposal -
> 3.5.1"
> > > > thread
> > > >
> > > > > three branch plan with “features”, “testing”, and “stable”
starting
> > > with
> > > > 4.0?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mick
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0

[Jeff Jirsa]

We’ll be voting in the very near future on timing of major releases and release 
strategy. 4.0 won’t happen until that vote takes place. 

But since you asked, I have ONE tick/tock (3.9) cluster being qualified for 
production because it needs SASI.

- Jeff

On 11/17/16, 9:59 AM, "Jonathan Haddad"  wrote:

>I think it might be worth considering adopting the release strategy before
>4.0 release.  Are any PMC members putting tick tock in prod? Does anyone
>even trust it?  What's the downside of changing the release cycle
>independently from 4.0?
>
>On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM Jason Brown  wrote:
>
>Jason,
>
>That's a separate topic, but we will have a different vote on how the
>branching/release strategy should be for the future.
>
>On Thursday, November 17, 2016, jason zhao yang >
>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Will we still use tick-tock release for 4.x and 4.0.x ?
>>
>> Stefan Podkowinski >于2016年11月16日周三
>> 下午4:52写道：
>>
>> > From my understanding, this will also effect EOL dates of other
>branches.
>> >
>> > "We will maintain the 2.2 stability series until 4.0 is released, and
>3.0
>> > for six months after that.".
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nate McCall > > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Agreed. As long as we have a goal I don't see why we have to adhere to
>> > > arbitrary date for 4.0.
>> > >
>> > > On Nov 16, 2016 1:45 PM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" > >
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I’ll comment on the broader issue, but right now I want to elaborate
>> on
>> > > > 3.11/January/arbitrary cutoff date.
>> > > >
>> > > > Doesn’t matter what the original plan was. We should continue with
>> 3.X
>> > > > until all the 4.0 blockers have been
>> > > > committed - and there are quite a few of them remaining yet.
>> > > >
>> > > > So given all the holidays, and the tickets remaining, I’ll
>personally
>> > be
>> > > > surprised if 4.0 comes out before
>> > > > February/March and 3.13/3.14. Nor do I think it’s an issue.
>> > > >
>> > > > —
>> > > > AY
>> > > >
>> > > > On 16 November 2016 at 00:39:03, Mick Semb Wever (
>> > m...@thelastpickle.com 
>> > > )
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > On 4 November 2016 at 13:47, Nate McCall > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Specifically, this should be "new stuff that could/will break
>> things"
>> > > > > given we are upping
>> > > > > the major version.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > How does this co-ordinate with the tick-tock versioning¹ leading up
>> to
>> > > the
>> > > > 4.0 release?
>> > > >
>> > > > To just stop tick-tock and then say yeehaa let's jam in all the
>> > breaking
>> > > > changes we really want seems to be throwing away some of the learnt
>> > > wisdom,
>> > > > and not doing a very sane transition from tick-tock to
>> > > > features/testing/stable². I really hope all this is done in a way
>> that
>> > > > continues us down the path towards a stable-master.
>> > > >
>> > > > For example, are we fixing the release of 4.0 to November? or
>> > continuing
>> > > > tick-tocks until we complete the 4.0 roadmap? or starting the
>> > > > features/testing/stable branching approach with 3.11?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Background:
>> > > > ¹) Sylvain wrote in an earlier thread titled "A Home for 4.0"
>> > > >
>> > > > > And as 4.0 was initially supposed to come after 3.11, which is
>> > coming,
>> > > > it's probably time to have a home for those tickets.
>> > > >
>> > > > ²) The new versioning scheme slated for 4.0, per the "Proposal -
>> 3.5.1"
>> > > > thread
>> > > >
>> > > > > three branch plan with “features”, “testing”, and “stable”
>starting
>> > > with
>> > > > 4.0?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Mick
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0

[sankalp kohli]

@Jeff
"But since you asked, I have ONE tick/tock (3.9) cluster being qualified
for production because it needs SASI."
You are brave :)

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jeff Jirsa 
wrote:

>
> We’ll be voting in the very near future on timing of major releases and
> release strategy. 4.0 won’t happen until that vote takes place.
>
> But since you asked, I have ONE tick/tock (3.9) cluster being qualified
> for production because it needs SASI.
>
> - Jeff
>
> On 11/17/16, 9:59 AM, "Jonathan Haddad"  wrote:
>
> >I think it might be worth considering adopting the release strategy before
> >4.0 release.  Are any PMC members putting tick tock in prod? Does anyone
> >even trust it?  What's the downside of changing the release cycle
> >independently from 4.0?
> >
> >On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM Jason Brown  wrote:
> >
> >Jason,
> >
> >That's a separate topic, but we will have a different vote on how the
> >branching/release strategy should be for the future.
> >
> >On Thursday, November 17, 2016, jason zhao yang <
> zhaoyangsingap...@gmail.com
> >>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Will we still use tick-tock release for 4.x and 4.0.x ?
> >>
> >> Stefan Podkowinski >于2016年11月16日周三
> >> 下午4:52写道：
> >>
> >> > From my understanding, this will also effect EOL dates of other
> >branches.
> >> >
> >> > "We will maintain the 2.2 stability series until 4.0 is released, and
> >3.0
> >> > for six months after that.".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nate McCall  >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Agreed. As long as we have a goal I don't see why we have to adhere
> to
> >> > > arbitrary date for 4.0.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Nov 16, 2016 1:45 PM, "Aleksey Yeschenko"  >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I’ll comment on the broader issue, but right now I want to
> elaborate
> >> on
> >> > > > 3.11/January/arbitrary cutoff date.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Doesn’t matter what the original plan was. We should continue with
> >> 3.X
> >> > > > until all the 4.0 blockers have been
> >> > > > committed - and there are quite a few of them remaining yet.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > So given all the holidays, and the tickets remaining, I’ll
> >personally
> >> > be
> >> > > > surprised if 4.0 comes out before
> >> > > > February/March and 3.13/3.14. Nor do I think it’s an issue.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > —
> >> > > > AY
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 16 November 2016 at 00:39:03, Mick Semb Wever (
> >> > m...@thelastpickle.com 
> >> > > )
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 4 November 2016 at 13:47, Nate McCall  >> > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Specifically, this should be "new stuff that could/will break
> >> things"
> >> > > > > given we are upping
> >> > > > > the major version.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > How does this co-ordinate with the tick-tock versioning¹ leading
> up
> >> to
> >> > > the
> >> > > > 4.0 release?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > To just stop tick-tock and then say yeehaa let's jam in all the
> >> > breaking
> >> > > > changes we really want seems to be throwing away some of the
> learnt
> >> > > wisdom,
> >> > > > and not doing a very sane transition from tick-tock to
> >> > > > features/testing/stable². I really hope all this is done in a way
> >> that
> >> > > > continues us down the path towards a stable-master.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > For example, are we fixing the release of 4.0 to November? or
> >> > continuing
> >> > > > tick-tocks until we complete the 4.0 roadmap? or starting the
> >> > > > features/testing/stable branching approach with 3.11?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Background:
> >> > > > ¹) Sylvain wrote in an earlier thread titled "A Home for 4.0"
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > And as 4.0 was initially supposed to come after 3.11, which is
> >> > coming,
> >> > > > it's probably time to have a home for those tickets.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ²) The new versioning scheme slated for 4.0, per the "Proposal -
> >> 3.5.1"
> >> > > > thread
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > three branch plan with “features”, “testing”, and “stable”
> >starting
> >> > > with
> >> > > > 4.0?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Mick
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>

Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0

[Mick Semb Wever]

We should continue with 3.X until all the 4.0 blockers have been
>> committed - and there are quite a few of them remaining yet.
>
>

And… are we right to presume that all the "roadmap 4.0" issues that don't
break any compatibility will be released in the 3.X tock releases leading
up to 4.0?

Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0

[DuyHai Doan]

Be very careful, there is a serious bug about AND/OR semantics, not solved
yet and not going to be solved any soon:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12674

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
wrote:

>
> We’ll be voting in the very near future on timing of major releases and
> release strategy. 4.0 won’t happen until that vote takes place.
>
> But since you asked, I have ONE tick/tock (3.9) cluster being qualified
> for production because it needs SASI.
>
> - Jeff
>
> On 11/17/16, 9:59 AM, "Jonathan Haddad"  wrote:
>
> >I think it might be worth considering adopting the release strategy before
> >4.0 release.  Are any PMC members putting tick tock in prod? Does anyone
> >even trust it?  What's the downside of changing the release cycle
> >independently from 4.0?
> >
> >On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM Jason Brown  wrote:
> >
> >Jason,
> >
> >That's a separate topic, but we will have a different vote on how the
> >branching/release strategy should be for the future.
> >
> >On Thursday, November 17, 2016, jason zhao yang <
> zhaoyangsingap...@gmail.com
> >>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Will we still use tick-tock release for 4.x and 4.0.x ?
> >>
> >> Stefan Podkowinski >于2016年11月16日周三
> >> 下午4:52写道：
> >>
> >> > From my understanding, this will also effect EOL dates of other
> >branches.
> >> >
> >> > "We will maintain the 2.2 stability series until 4.0 is released, and
> >3.0
> >> > for six months after that.".
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nate McCall  >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Agreed. As long as we have a goal I don't see why we have to adhere
> to
> >> > > arbitrary date for 4.0.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Nov 16, 2016 1:45 PM, "Aleksey Yeschenko"  >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I’ll comment on the broader issue, but right now I want to
> elaborate
> >> on
> >> > > > 3.11/January/arbitrary cutoff date.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Doesn’t matter what the original plan was. We should continue with
> >> 3.X
> >> > > > until all the 4.0 blockers have been
> >> > > > committed - and there are quite a few of them remaining yet.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > So given all the holidays, and the tickets remaining, I’ll
> >personally
> >> > be
> >> > > > surprised if 4.0 comes out before
> >> > > > February/March and 3.13/3.14. Nor do I think it’s an issue.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > —
> >> > > > AY
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 16 November 2016 at 00:39:03, Mick Semb Wever (
> >> > m...@thelastpickle.com 
> >> > > )
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 4 November 2016 at 13:47, Nate McCall  >> > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Specifically, this should be "new stuff that could/will break
> >> things"
> >> > > > > given we are upping
> >> > > > > the major version.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > How does this co-ordinate with the tick-tock versioning¹ leading
> up
> >> to
> >> > > the
> >> > > > 4.0 release?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > To just stop tick-tock and then say yeehaa let's jam in all the
> >> > breaking
> >> > > > changes we really want seems to be throwing away some of the
> learnt
> >> > > wisdom,
> >> > > > and not doing a very sane transition from tick-tock to
> >> > > > features/testing/stable². I really hope all this is done in a way
> >> that
> >> > > > continues us down the path towards a stable-master.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > For example, are we fixing the release of 4.0 to November? or
> >> > continuing
> >> > > > tick-tocks until we complete the 4.0 roadmap? or starting the
> >> > > > features/testing/stable branching approach with 3.11?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Background:
> >> > > > ¹) Sylvain wrote in an earlier thread titled "A Home for 4.0"
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > And as 4.0 was initially supposed to come after 3.11, which is
> >> > coming,
> >> > > > it's probably time to have a home for those tickets.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ²) The new versioning scheme slated for 4.0, per the "Proposal -
> >> 3.5.1"
> >> > > > thread
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > three branch plan with “features”, “testing”, and “stable”
> >starting
> >> > > with
> >> > > > 4.0?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Mick
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>

Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0

[Carlos Rolo]

No Cluster in tick-tock.

Actually reverted a couple to 3.0.x

Regards,

Carlos Juzarte Rolo
Cassandra Consultant / Datastax Certified Architect / Cassandra MVP

Pythian - Love your data

rolo@pythian | Twitter: @cjrolo | Skype: cjr2k3 | Linkedin:
*linkedin.com/in/carlosjuzarterolo
*
Mobile: +351 918 918 100
www.pythian.com

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:20 PM, DuyHai Doan  wrote:

> Be very careful, there is a serious bug about AND/OR semantics, not solved
> yet and not going to be solved any soon:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12674
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > We’ll be voting in the very near future on timing of major releases and
> > release strategy. 4.0 won’t happen until that vote takes place.
> >
> > But since you asked, I have ONE tick/tock (3.9) cluster being qualified
> > for production because it needs SASI.
> >
> > - Jeff
> >
> > On 11/17/16, 9:59 AM, "Jonathan Haddad"  wrote:
> >
> > >I think it might be worth considering adopting the release strategy
> before
> > >4.0 release.  Are any PMC members putting tick tock in prod? Does anyone
> > >even trust it?  What's the downside of changing the release cycle
> > >independently from 4.0?
> > >
> > >On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM Jason Brown 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >Jason,
> > >
> > >That's a separate topic, but we will have a different vote on how the
> > >branching/release strategy should be for the future.
> > >
> > >On Thursday, November 17, 2016, jason zhao yang <
> > zhaoyangsingap...@gmail.com
> > >>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> Will we still use tick-tock release for 4.x and 4.0.x ?
> > >>
> > >> Stefan Podkowinski >于2016年11月16日周三
> > >> 下午4:52写道：
> > >>
> > >> > From my understanding, this will also effect EOL dates of other
> > >branches.
> > >> >
> > >> > "We will maintain the 2.2 stability series until 4.0 is released,
> and
> > >3.0
> > >> > for six months after that.".
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nate McCall  > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Agreed. As long as we have a goal I don't see why we have to
> adhere
> > to
> > >> > > arbitrary date for 4.0.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Nov 16, 2016 1:45 PM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" <
> alek...@datastax.com
> > >> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > I’ll comment on the broader issue, but right now I want to
> > elaborate
> > >> on
> > >> > > > 3.11/January/arbitrary cutoff date.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Doesn’t matter what the original plan was. We should continue
> with
> > >> 3.X
> > >> > > > until all the 4.0 blockers have been
> > >> > > > committed - and there are quite a few of them remaining yet.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > So given all the holidays, and the tickets remaining, I’ll
> > >personally
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > surprised if 4.0 comes out before
> > >> > > > February/March and 3.13/3.14. Nor do I think it’s an issue.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > —
> > >> > > > AY
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On 16 November 2016 at 00:39:03, Mick Semb Wever (
> > >> > m...@thelastpickle.com 
> > >> > > )
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On 4 November 2016 at 13:47, Nate McCall  > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Specifically, this should be "new stuff that could/will break
> > >> things"
> > >> > > > > given we are upping
> > >> > > > > the major version.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > How does this co-ordinate with the tick-tock versioning¹ leading
> > up
> > >> to
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > 4.0 release?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > To just stop tick-tock and then say yeehaa let's jam in all the
> > >> > breaking
> > >> > > > changes we really want seems to be throwing away some of the
> > learnt
> > >> > > wisdom,
> > >> > > > and not doing a very sane transition from tick-tock to
> > >> > > > features/testing/stable². I really hope all this is done in a
> way
> > >> that
> > >> > > > continues us down the path towards a stable-master.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > For example, are we fixing the release of 4.0 to November? or
> > >> > continuing
> > >> > > > tick-tocks until we complete the 4.0 roadmap? or starting the
> > >> > > > features/testing/stable branching approach with 3.11?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Background:
> > >> > > > ¹) Sylvain wrote in an earlier thread titled "A Home for 4.0"
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > And as 4.0 was initially supposed to come after 3.11, which is
> > >> > coming,
> > >> > > > it's probably time to have a home for those tickets.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > ²) The new versioning scheme slated for 4.0, per the "Proposal -
> > >> 3.5.1"
> > >> > > > thread
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > three branch plan with “features”, “testing”, and “stable”
> > >starting
> > >> > > with
> > >> > > > 4.0?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Mick
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>

-- 


--

Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0

[Ben Bromhead]

We have a few small customers clusters running on our 3.7 LTS release...
though we are not calling it production ready yet.

We also just moved our internal metrics cluster from 2.2 to 3.7 LTS to get
materialised views and to get some 3.x production experience.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 at 14:27 Carlos Rolo  wrote:

> No Cluster in tick-tock.
>
> Actually reverted a couple to 3.0.x
>
> Regards,
>
> Carlos Juzarte Rolo
> Cassandra Consultant / Datastax Certified Architect / Cassandra MVP
>
> Pythian - Love your data
>
> rolo@pythian | Twitter: @cjrolo | Skype: cjr2k3 | Linkedin:
> *linkedin.com/in/carlosjuzarterolo
> *
> Mobile: +351 918 918 100 <+351%20918%20918%20100>
> www.pythian.com
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:20 PM, DuyHai Doan 
> wrote:
>
> > Be very careful, there is a serious bug about AND/OR semantics, not
> solved
> > yet and not going to be solved any soon:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12674
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > We’ll be voting in the very near future on timing of major releases and
> > > release strategy. 4.0 won’t happen until that vote takes place.
> > >
> > > But since you asked, I have ONE tick/tock (3.9) cluster being qualified
> > > for production because it needs SASI.
> > >
> > > - Jeff
> > >
> > > On 11/17/16, 9:59 AM, "Jonathan Haddad"  wrote:
> > >
> > > >I think it might be worth considering adopting the release strategy
> > before
> > > >4.0 release.  Are any PMC members putting tick tock in prod? Does
> anyone
> > > >even trust it?  What's the downside of changing the release cycle
> > > >independently from 4.0?
> > > >
> > > >On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM Jason Brown 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Jason,
> > > >
> > > >That's a separate topic, but we will have a different vote on how the
> > > >branching/release strategy should be for the future.
> > > >
> > > >On Thursday, November 17, 2016, jason zhao yang <
> > > zhaoyangsingap...@gmail.com
> > > >>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> Will we still use tick-tock release for 4.x and 4.0.x ?
> > > >>
> > > >> Stefan Podkowinski >于2016年11月16日周三
> > > >> 下午4:52写道：
> > > >>
> > > >> > From my understanding, this will also effect EOL dates of other
> > > >branches.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "We will maintain the 2.2 stability series until 4.0 is released,
> > and
> > > >3.0
> > > >> > for six months after that.".
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nate McCall  > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Agreed. As long as we have a goal I don't see why we have to
> > adhere
> > > to
> > > >> > > arbitrary date for 4.0.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Nov 16, 2016 1:45 PM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" <
> > alek...@datastax.com
> > > >> >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > I’ll comment on the broader issue, but right now I want to
> > > elaborate
> > > >> on
> > > >> > > > 3.11/January/arbitrary cutoff date.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Doesn’t matter what the original plan was. We should continue
> > with
> > > >> 3.X
> > > >> > > > until all the 4.0 blockers have been
> > > >> > > > committed - and there are quite a few of them remaining yet.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > So given all the holidays, and the tickets remaining, I’ll
> > > >personally
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > > surprised if 4.0 comes out before
> > > >> > > > February/March and 3.13/3.14. Nor do I think it’s an issue.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > —
> > > >> > > > AY
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On 16 November 2016 at 00:39:03, Mick Semb Wever (
> > > >> > m...@thelastpickle.com 
> > > >> > > )
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On 4 November 2016 at 13:47, Nate McCall  > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > Specifically, this should be "new stuff that could/will
> break
> > > >> things"
> > > >> > > > > given we are upping
> > > >> > > > > the major version.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > How does this co-ordinate with the tick-tock versioning¹
> leading
> > > up
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > 4.0 release?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > To just stop tick-tock and then say yeehaa let's jam in all
> the
> > > >> > breaking
> > > >> > > > changes we really want seems to be throwing away some of the
> > > learnt
> > > >> > > wisdom,
> > > >> > > > and not doing a very sane transition from tick-tock to
> > > >> > > > features/testing/stable². I really hope all this is done in a
> > way
> > > >> that
> > > >> > > > continues us down the path towards a stable-master.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > For example, are we fixing the release of 4.0 to November? or
> > > >> > continuing
> > > >> > > > tick-tocks until we complete the 4.0 roadmap? or starting the
> > > >> > > > features/testing/stable branching approach with 3.11?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Background:
> > > >> > > > ¹) Sylvain wrote in an earlier thread titled "A Home fo

Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0

[Ben Bromhead]

s/materialised views/aggregates/

also we expect to have our first larger production 3.7 LTS cluster in the
next few months.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 at 15:38 Ben Bromhead  wrote:

> We have a few small customers clusters running on our 3.7 LTS release...
> though we are not calling it production ready yet.
>
> We also just moved our internal metrics cluster from 2.2 to 3.7 LTS to get
> materialised views and to get some 3.x production experience.
>
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 at 14:27 Carlos Rolo  wrote:
>
> No Cluster in tick-tock.
>
> Actually reverted a couple to 3.0.x
>
> Regards,
>
> Carlos Juzarte Rolo
> Cassandra Consultant / Datastax Certified Architect / Cassandra MVP
>
> Pythian - Love your data
>
> rolo@pythian | Twitter: @cjrolo | Skype: cjr2k3 | Linkedin:
> *linkedin.com/in/carlosjuzarterolo
> *
> Mobile: +351 918 918 100 <+351%20918%20918%20100>
> www.pythian.com
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:20 PM, DuyHai Doan 
> wrote:
>
> > Be very careful, there is a serious bug about AND/OR semantics, not
> solved
> > yet and not going to be solved any soon:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12674
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > We’ll be voting in the very near future on timing of major releases and
> > > release strategy. 4.0 won’t happen until that vote takes place.
> > >
> > > But since you asked, I have ONE tick/tock (3.9) cluster being qualified
> > > for production because it needs SASI.
> > >
> > > - Jeff
> > >
> > > On 11/17/16, 9:59 AM, "Jonathan Haddad"  wrote:
> > >
> > > >I think it might be worth considering adopting the release strategy
> > before
> > > >4.0 release.  Are any PMC members putting tick tock in prod? Does
> anyone
> > > >even trust it?  What's the downside of changing the release cycle
> > > >independently from 4.0?
> > > >
> > > >On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM Jason Brown 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Jason,
> > > >
> > > >That's a separate topic, but we will have a different vote on how the
> > > >branching/release strategy should be for the future.
> > > >
> > > >On Thursday, November 17, 2016, jason zhao yang <
> > > zhaoyangsingap...@gmail.com
> > > >>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> Will we still use tick-tock release for 4.x and 4.0.x ?
> > > >>
> > > >> Stefan Podkowinski >于2016年11月16日周三
> > > >> 下午4:52写道：
> > > >>
> > > >> > From my understanding, this will also effect EOL dates of other
> > > >branches.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "We will maintain the 2.2 stability series until 4.0 is released,
> > and
> > > >3.0
> > > >> > for six months after that.".
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nate McCall  > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Agreed. As long as we have a goal I don't see why we have to
> > adhere
> > > to
> > > >> > > arbitrary date for 4.0.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Nov 16, 2016 1:45 PM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" <
> > alek...@datastax.com
> > > >> >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > I’ll comment on the broader issue, but right now I want to
> > > elaborate
> > > >> on
> > > >> > > > 3.11/January/arbitrary cutoff date.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Doesn’t matter what the original plan was. We should continue
> > with
> > > >> 3.X
> > > >> > > > until all the 4.0 blockers have been
> > > >> > > > committed - and there are quite a few of them remaining yet.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > So given all the holidays, and the tickets remaining, I’ll
> > > >personally
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > > surprised if 4.0 comes out before
> > > >> > > > February/March and 3.13/3.14. Nor do I think it’s an issue.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > —
> > > >> > > > AY
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On 16 November 2016 at 00:39:03, Mick Semb Wever (
> > > >> > m...@thelastpickle.com 
> > > >> > > )
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On 4 November 2016 at 13:47, Nate McCall  > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > Specifically, this should be "new stuff that could/will
> break
> > > >> things"
> > > >> > > > > given we are upping
> > > >> > > > > the major version.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > How does this co-ordinate with the tick-tock versioning¹
> leading
> > > up
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > 4.0 release?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > To just stop tick-tock and then say yeehaa let's jam in all
> the
> > > >> > breaking
> > > >> > > > changes we really want seems to be throwing away some of the
> > > learnt
> > > >> > > wisdom,
> > > >> > > > and not doing a very sane transition from tick-tock to
> > > >> > > > features/testing/stable². I really hope all this is done in a
> > way
> > > >> that
> > > >> > > > continues us down the path towards a stable-master.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > For example, are we fixing the release of 4.0 to November? or
> > > >> > continuing
> > > >> > > > tick-tocks until we complete the 4.0 roadmap? or starting the
> > > 

Summary of 4.0 Large Features/Breaking Changes (Was: Rough roadmap for 4.0)

[Nate McCall]

To sum up that other thread (I very much appreciate everyone's input,
btw), here is an aggregate list of large, breaking 4.0 proposed
changes:

CASSANDRA-9425 Immutable node-local schema
CASSANDRA-10699 Strongly consistent schema alterations
--
CASSANDRA-12229 NIO streaming
CASSANDRA-8457 NIO messaging
CASSANDRA-12345 Gossip 2.0
CASSANDRA-9754 Birch trees
CASSANDRA-11559 enhanced node representation
CASSANDRA-6246 epaxos
CASSANDRA-7544 storage port configurable per node
--
CASSANDRA-5 remove thrift support
CASSANDRA-10857 dropping compact storage

Again, this is the "big things that will probably break stuff" list
and thus should happen with a major (did I miss anything?). There
were/are/will be other smaller issues, but we don't really need to
keep them in front of us for this discussion as they can/will just
kind of happen w/o necessarily affecting anything else.

That all said, since we are 'doing a software' we need to start
thinking about the above in balance with resources and time. However,
a lot of the above items do have a substantial amount of code written
against them so it's not as daunting as it seems.

What I would like us to discuss is rough timelines and what is needed
to get these out the door.

One thing that sticks out to me: that big chunk in the middle there is
coming out of the same shop in Cupertino. I'm nervous about that. Not
that that ya'll are not capable, I'm solely looking at it from the
"that is a big list of some pretty hard shit" perspective.

So what else do we need to discuss to get these completed? How and
where can other folks pitch in?

-Nate

Re: Summary of 4.0 Large Features/Breaking Changes (Was: Rough roadmap for 4.0)

[Ben Bromhead]

We are happy to start testing against completed features. Ideally once
everything is ready for an RC (to catch interaction bugs), but we can do
sooner for features where it make sense and are finished earlier.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 at 16:47 Nate McCall  wrote:

> To sum up that other thread (I very much appreciate everyone's input,
> btw), here is an aggregate list of large, breaking 4.0 proposed
> changes:
>
> CASSANDRA-9425 Immutable node-local schema
> CASSANDRA-10699 Strongly consistent schema alterations
> --
> CASSANDRA-12229 NIO streaming
> CASSANDRA-8457 NIO messaging
> CASSANDRA-12345 Gossip 2.0
> CASSANDRA-9754 Birch trees
> CASSANDRA-11559 enhanced node representation
> CASSANDRA-6246 epaxos
> CASSANDRA-7544 storage port configurable per node
> --
> CASSANDRA-5 remove thrift support
> CASSANDRA-10857 dropping compact storage
>
> Again, this is the "big things that will probably break stuff" list
> and thus should happen with a major (did I miss anything?). There
> were/are/will be other smaller issues, but we don't really need to
> keep them in front of us for this discussion as they can/will just
> kind of happen w/o necessarily affecting anything else.
>
> That all said, since we are 'doing a software' we need to start
> thinking about the above in balance with resources and time. However,
> a lot of the above items do have a substantial amount of code written
> against them so it's not as daunting as it seems.
>
> What I would like us to discuss is rough timelines and what is needed
> to get these out the door.
>
> One thing that sticks out to me: that big chunk in the middle there is
> coming out of the same shop in Cupertino. I'm nervous about that. Not
> that that ya'll are not capable, I'm solely looking at it from the
> "that is a big list of some pretty hard shit" perspective.
>
> So what else do we need to discuss to get these completed? How and
> where can other folks pitch in?
>
> -Nate
>
-- 
Ben Bromhead
CTO | Instaclustr 
+1 650 284 9692
Managed Cassandra / Spark on AWS, Azure and Softlayer