RE: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

15 3:40 AM To: dev Subject: Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process Short answer: yes. Longer answer, pasted from my reply to Jon Haddad elsewhere in the thread: We are moving away from designating major releases like 3.0 as "special," other than as a marker of compatibility. In fact

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

Short answer: yes. Longer answer, pasted from my reply to Jon Haddad elsewhere in the thread: We are moving away from designating major releases like 3.0 as "special," other than as a marker of compatibility. In fact we are moving away from major releases entirely, with each release being a much

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

Hi Jonathan, How long will tick-tock releases will be maintained? Do users have to upgrade to a new even release with new features to fix the bugs in an older even release? 2015-04-14 6:28 GMT+08:00 Jonathan Ellis : > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > > > > > I’m optimist

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > > I’m optimistic that as we improve our process this way, our even releases > will become increasingly stable. If so, we can skip sub-minor releases > (3.2.x) entirely, and focus on keeping the release train moving. In the > meantime, we

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

Hey Jonathan, I have been hoping for this approach for years now-one of the reasons I left Datastax was due to my feeling that quality was always on the backburner and never really taken seriously vs marketing driven releases. I sincerely hope this approach reverses that perceived trend. -- Col

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

We are moving away from designating major releases like 3.0 as "special," other than as a marker of compatibility. In fact we are moving away from major releases entirely, with each release being a much smaller, digestible unit of change, and the ultimate goal of every even release being productio

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

In this tick tock cycle, is there still a long term release that's maintained, meant for production? Will bug fixes be back ported to 3.0 (stable) with new stuff going forward to 3.x? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:50 AM Aleksey Yeschenko wrote: > Hey Jason. I think pretty much everybody is on board

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

Hey Jason. I think pretty much everybody is on board with: 1) A monthly release cycle 2) Keeping trunk releasable all the times And that’s what my personal +1 was for. The tick-tock mechanism details and bug fix policy for the maintained stable lines should be fleshed out before we proceed. I be

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

Broadly as a contributor and operator I like the idea of more frequent releases off of an always stable master. First customer ship quality all the time [1]! I'm a little concerned that the specific tick-tock proposal could devolve into a 'devodd' style where the 'feature release' becomes a

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

Hey all, I had a hallway conversation with some folks here last week, and they expressed some concerns with this proposal. I will not attempt to summarize their arguments as I don't believe I could do them ample justice, but I strongly encouraged those individuals to speak up and be heard on this

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

+1 -- Ranger Tsao 2015-03-20 22:57 GMT+08:00 Ryan McGuire : > I'm taking notes from the infrastructure doc and wrote down some action > items for my team: > > https://gist.github.com/EnigmaCurry/d53eccb55f5d0986c976 > > > -- > > [image: datastax_logo.png]

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

I'm taking notes from the infrastructure doc and wrote down some action items for my team: https://gist.github.com/EnigmaCurry/d53eccb55f5d0986c976 -- [image: datastax_logo.png] Ryan McGuire Software Engineering Manager in Test | r...@datastax.com [image: linkedin.

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

Hi, I realized one of the documents we didn't send out was the infrastructure side changes I am looking for. This one is maybe a little rougher as it was the first one I wrote on the subject. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Seku0vPwChbnH3uYYxon0UO-b6LDtSqluZiH--sWWi0/edit?usp=sharing The goa

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

+1 to this general proposal. I think the time has finally come for us to try something new, and this sounds legit. Thanks! On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Phil Yang wrote: > Can I regard the odd version as the "development preview" and the even > version as the "production ready"? > > IMO, as

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

Can I regard the odd version as the "development preview" and the even version as the "production ready"? IMO, as a database infrastructure project, "stable" is more important than other kinds of projects. LTS is a good idea, but if we don't support non-LTS releases for enough time to fix their bu

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

+1 On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Michael Kjellman < mkjell...@internalcircle.com> wrote: > For most of my life I’ve lived on the software bleeding edge both > personally and professionally. Maybe it’s a personal weakness, but I guess > I get a thrill out of the problem solving aspect? > > Rece

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

For most of my life I’ve lived on the software bleeding edge both personally and professionally. Maybe it’s a personal weakness, but I guess I get a thrill out of the problem solving aspect? Recently I came to a bit of an epiphany — the closer I keep to the daily build — generally the happier I

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

Hi, Keep in mind it is a bug fix release every month and a feature release every two months. For development that is really a two month cycle with all bug fixes being backported one release. As a developer if you want to get something in a release you have two months and you should be sizing p

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

Hi, Long lived feature branches are already a thing and orthogonal IMO to release frequency. The goal is that developers will implement larger features as smaller tested components that have already shipped. Some times this means working in a less destructive fashion so you can always ship a wo

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

I like the idea but I agree that every month is a bit aggressive. I have no say but: I would say 4 releases a year instead of 12. with 2 months of new features and 1 month of bug squashing per a release. With the 4th quarter just bugs. I would also proposed 2 year LTS releases for the releases af

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

It would seem the practical implications of this is that there would be significantly more development on branches, with potentially more significant delays on merging these branches. This would imply to me that more Jenkins servers would need to be set up to handle auto-testing of more branche

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

If every other release is a bug fix release, would the versioning go: 3.1.0 <-- feature release 3.1.1 <-- bug fix release Eventually it seems like it might be possible to be able to push out a bug fix release more frequently than once a month? On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:59 AM Josh McKenzie wrote

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

+1 On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Jake Luciani wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > > Cassandra 2.1 was released in September, which means that if we were on > > track with our stated goal of six month releases, 3.0 would be done about > > now. Instead, we

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

+1 On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > Cassandra 2.1 was released in September, which means that if we were on > track with our stated goal of six month releases, 3.0 would be done about > now. Instead, we haven't even delivered a beta. The immediate cause this > time is bl

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

+1. This sounds like a step in a better direction. Gary. On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > Cassandra 2.1 was released in September, which means that if we were on > track with our stated goal of six month releases, 3.0 would be done about > now. Instead, we haven't even

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

+1 --  AY On March 17, 2015 at 14:07:03, Jonathan Ellis (jbel...@gmail.com) wrote: Cassandra 2.1 was released in September, which means that if we were on track with our stated goal of six month releases, 3.0 would be done about now. Instead, we haven't even delivered a beta. The immediate c

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

+1 I also appreciate Ariel’s effort. The improved CI integration is great - being able to run a huge amount of tests on different platforms against one's development branch is a huge improvement. > Am 17.03.2015 um 22:06 schrieb Jonathan Ellis : > > Cassandra 2.1 was released in September, wh

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

+1 On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > Cassandra 2.1 was released in September, which means that if we were on > track with our stated goal of six month releases, 3.0 would be done about > now. Instead, we haven't even delivered a beta. The immediate cause this > time is

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

Thanks for everyone's hard work and perseverance, Cassandra to is truly amazing. It really does make redundancy so much easier making my life far less stressful (: it surely is this awesomeness that creates the demand for features in the first place. So this is a great problem to have. Certainl

Re: 3.0 and the Cassandra release process

❤️ it. +1 -kjellman > On Mar 17, 2015, at 2:06 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > > Cassandra 2.1 was released in September, which means that if we were on > track with our stated goal of six month releases, 3.0 would be done about > now. Instead, we haven't even delivered a beta. The immediate caus

3.0 and the Cassandra release process

Cassandra 2.1 was released in September, which means that if we were on track with our stated goal of six month releases, 3.0 would be done about now. Instead, we haven't even delivered a beta. The immediate cause this time is blocking for 8099