cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anuj Wadehra <>
Subject Re: Criteria for upgrading to 3.x releases in PROD
Date Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:12:01 GMT
I am sorry but here, I am not expecting thousands to decide a stable version for my use case.
I have a serious question about publishing some info on the Apache website. As dev list has
active contributors, I posted it here. If not this forum, Whats the best way to put your suggestions
regarding Apache content and initiate a meaningful and conclusive discussion thread? 


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
  On Mon, 18 Apr, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Michael Kjellman<> wrote:
  This is best for the users list. Test the releases yourself and then decide when it's ready
for your use case, ops team, and organization. This is a personal decision and not one for
*thousands* of others on this mailing list to make for you.


> On Apr 18, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Anuj Wadehra <> wrote:
> Hi All,
> For last several months, the "most stable version" question pops up on the user mailing
list and then people get all sorts of responses/suggestions..
> If you are conservative go for x if adventurous y..
> If you have good risk appetite go for x else y..
> If you want features go for x else y..
> Unfortunately, all above responses dont help many users..but only reinforce the low confidence
in latest releases.Who wants to be adventurous in Production? Who wants to test his risk appetite
in Production? And who would want features for stability in Production? Not many..I am sure.
> So my question is:
> Would it be a wise decision to mention the "most stable/production ready" version (as
it used to be before 3.x) on the Apache website till tick-tock release strategy evolves and
>  That will somewhat contradict the tick-tock philosphy of stable odd releases but would
be more realistic as every big change needs time to stabilise. Its slightly unfair, if users
are kept in confused state till the strategy matures and starts delivering solid stable builds.
> I think the question is more appropriate in dev list so I have kept it here.
> ThanksAnuj
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
>  On Mon, 11 Apr, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko<> wrote: 
The answer will depend on how conservative you are.
> The most conservative choice overall would be to go with the 2.2.x line.
> 3.0.x if you want to the new nice and shiny 3.0 things, but can tolerate some risk (the
branch has a lot of relatively new core code, and hasn’t yet been tried out by as many users
as the 2.x branch had).
> The latest odd 3.x if you want the shiniest (3.5 to be released soon, with features like
the new SASI secondary indexes support). Also, there hasn’t yet been that much divergence
between 3.0.x and 3.x, so risk levels are around the same, so long as you limit yourself to
only the features present in 3.0.x.
> Either way, make sure to properly test whatever release you go for in staging first,
as Michael says, and you’ll be alright.
> -- 
> AY
> On 11 April 2016 at 18:42:31, Anuj Wadehra ( wrote:
> Can someone help me with this one?  
> ThanksAnuj  
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android  
> On Sun, 10 Apr, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Anuj Wadehra<> wrote: Hi, 

> Tick-Tock release strategy in 3.x was a good intiative to ensure frequent & stable
releases. While odd releases are supposed to get all the bug fixes and should be most stable,
many people like me, who got used to the comforting "production ready/stable" tag on Apache
website,  are still reluctant to take latest 3.x odd releases into production. I think the
hesitation is somewhat justified as processes often take time to mature.  
> So here I would like to ask the experts, people who know the ground situation, people
who actively develop it and manage it. Considering the current scenario, What should be a
resonable criteria for taking 3.x releases in production?  
> ThanksAnuj  


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message