cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Kjellman <mkjell...@internalcircle.com>
Subject Re: Summary of 4.0 Large Features/Breaking Changes (Was: Rough roadmap for 4.0)
Date Sat, 19 Nov 2016 17:14:21 GMT
Honest question: are you *ever* positive Ed? 

Maybe give it a shot once in a while. It will be good for your mental health. 


Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 19, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxguru@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This is especially relevant if people wish to focus on removing things.
> 
> For example, gossip 2.0 sounds great, but seems geared toward huge clusters
> which is not likely a majority of users. For those with a 20 node cluster
> are the indirect benefits woth it?
> 
> Also there seems to be a first push to remove things like compact storage
> or thrift. Fine great. But what is the realistic update path for someone.
> If the big players are running 2.1 and maintaining backports, the average
> shop without a dedicated team is going to be stuck saying (great features
> in 4.0 that improve performance, i would probably switch but its not stable
> and we have that one compact storage cf and who knows what is going to
> happen performance wise when)
> 
> We really need to lose this realease wont be stable for 6 minor versions
> concept.
> 
> On Saturday, November 19, 2016, Edward Capriolo <edlinuxguru@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, November 18, 2016, Jeff Jirsa <jeff.jirsa@crowdstrike.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jeff.jirsa@crowdstrike.com');>> wrote:
>> 
>>> We should assume that we’re ditching tick/tock. I’ll post a thread on
>>> 4.0-and-beyond here in a few minutes.
>>> 
>>> The advantage of a prod release every 6 months is fewer incentive to push
>>> unfinished work into a release.
>>> The disadvantage of a prod release every 6 months is then we either have
>>> a very short lifespan per-release, or we have to maintain lots of active
>>> releases.
>>> 
>>> 2.1 has been out for over 2 years, and a lot of people (including us) are
>>> running it in prod – if we have a release every 6 months, that means we’d
>>> be supporting 4+ releases at a time, just to keep parity with what we have
>>> now? Maybe that’s ok, if we’re very selective about ‘support’ for 2+
year
>>> old branches.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11/18/16, 3:10 PM, "beggleston@apple.com on behalf of Blake
>>> Eggleston" <beggleston@apple.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> While stability is important if we push back large "core" changes
>>> until later we're just setting ourselves up to face the same issues later on
>>>> 
>>>> In theory, yes. In practice, when incomplete features are earmarked for
>>> a certain release, those features are often rushed out, and not always
>>> fully baked.
>>>> 
>>>> In any case, I don’t think it makes sense to spend too much time
>>> planning what goes into 4.0, and what goes into the next major release with
>>> so many release strategy related decisions still up in the air. Are we
>>> going to ditch tick-tock? If so, what will it’s replacement look like?
>>> Specifically, when will the next “production” release happen? Without
>>> knowing that, it's hard to say if something should go in 4.0, or 4.5, or
>>> 5.0, or whatever.
>>>> 
>>>> The reason I suggested a production release every 6 months is because
>>> (in my mind) it’s frequent enough that people won’t be tempted to rush
>>> features to hit a given release, but not so frequent that it’s not
>>> practical to support. It wouldn’t be the end of the world if some of these
>>> tickets didn’t make it into 4.0, because 4.5 would fine.
>>>> 
>>>> On November 18, 2016 at 1:57:21 PM, kurt Greaves (kurt@instaclustr.com)
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 18 November 2016 at 18:25, Jason Brown <jasedbrown@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> #11559 (enhanced node representation) - decided it's *not* something
we
>>>>> need wrt #7544 storage port configurable per node, so we are punting
on
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> #12344 - Forward writes to replacement node with same address during
>>> replace
>>>> depends on #11559. To be honest I'd say #12344 is pretty important,
>>>> otherwise it makes it difficult to replace nodes without potentially
>>>> requiring client code/configuration changes. It would be nice to get
>>> #12344
>>>> in for 4.0. It's marked as an improvement but I'd consider it a bug and
>>>> thus think it could be included in a later minor release.
>>>> 
>>>> Introducing all of these in a single release seems pretty risky. I think
>>> it
>>>>> would be safer to spread these out over a few 4.x releases (as they’re
>>>>> finished) and give them time to stabilize before including them in an
>>> LTS
>>>>> release. The downside would be having to maintain backwards
>>> compatibility
>>>>> across the 4.x versions, but that seems preferable to delaying the
>>> release
>>>>> of 4.0 to include these, and having another big bang release.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think anyone expects 4.0.0 to be stable. It's a major version
>>>> change with lots of new features; in the production world people don't
>>>> normally move to a new major version until it has been out for quite some
>>>> time and several minor releases have passed. Really, most people are only
>>>> migrating to 3.0.x now. While stability is important if we push back
>>> large
>>>> "core" changes until later we're just setting ourselves up to face the
>>> same
>>>> issues later on. There should be enough uptake on the early releases of
>>> 4.0
>>>> from new users to help test and get it to a production-ready state.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Kurt Greaves
>>>> kurt@instaclustr.com
>>> 
>>> 
>> I don't think anyone expects 4.0.0 to be stable
>> 
>> Someone previously described 3.0 as the "break everything release".
>> 
>> We know that many people are still 2.1 and 3.0. Cassandra will always be
>> maintaining 3 or 4 active branches and have adoption issues if releases are
>> not stable and usable.
>> 
>> Being that cassandra was 1.0 years ago I expect things to be stable. Half
>> working features , or added this broke that are not appealing to me.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Sorry this was sent from mobile. Will do less grammar and spell check than
>> usual.
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sorry this was sent from mobile. Will do less grammar and spell check than
> usual.

Mime
View raw message