cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sankalp kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0
Date Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:33:48 GMT
@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 <jeff.jirsa@crowdstrike.com>
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" <jon@jonhaddad.com> 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 <jasedbrown@gmail.com> 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 <
> zhaoyangsingapore@gmail.com
> >>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Will we still use tick-tock release for 4.x and 4.0.x ?
> >>
> >> Stefan Podkowinski <spodxx@gmail.com <javascript:;>>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 <zznate.m@gmail.com
> >> <javascript:;>> 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" <aleksey@datastax.com
> >> <javascript:;>>
> >> > 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 (
> >> > mick@thelastpickle.com <javascript:;>
> >> > > )
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 4 November 2016 at 13:47, Nate McCall <zznate.m@gmail.com
> >> <javascript:;>> 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
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>

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