We capture this as part of our release lifecycle document: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=132320437We define releases from our “Beta” milestone onward as API-stable:BetaDefinition / Expectations:Should be interface-stable, so that consumers do not have to incur any
I see the argument. In reality though we can never truly guarantee that
something is API stable, only our intent to keep it so if at all possible,
right?
On Wed, Jul 3, 2024, at 8:58 AM, Claude Warren, Jr wrote:
> Because you do not know if the issues stopping the release will require an
> API
.
The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who has
> tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are considered
> binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding +1s and no -1's.
>
>
With a veto in place the vote fails.
Agreed, I can attest to the importance of this issue as well.
The bug is query- and data-dependent, but is such that previously-correct
latency metrics that may ordinarily report latency in the 1ms range can
incorrectly report latency as 70ms or higher due to measurement error. Users
would obse
-1
I'm afraid we have found an issue with coordinator level latency metrics being
artificially inflated for certain types of queries.
Unfortunately this is a new regression, introduced by CASSANDRA-19534, so we
shouldn't knowingly include it in the release.
The good news is that only a subset
> Once you are happy with your chosen library, we need a DISCUSS thread to add
> this new library (current protocol).
Thanks, David. This is a good point, do we need a separate DISCUSS
thread or can we just use this one? I'm in favour of keeping the
discussion in one place, especially when topics
