cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tyler Hobbs <ty...@datastax.com>
Subject Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released
Date Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:17:59 GMT
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Janne Jalkanen <Janne.Jalkanen@ecyrd.com>
wrote:

>
> So there is no reason why you would ever want to run 3.1 then?
>

Probably not.


>  Why was it released?
>

For consistency.  It's the first release in the new tick-tock release
scheme.  Skipping that would have been a bit strange (although I'll agree
it's also strange to have 3.0.1 == 3.1).


>  What is the lifecycle of 3.0.x? Will it become obsolete once 3.3 comes
> out?
>

3.0.x will continue until 4.0.


>
>
>    - If you want access to the new features introduced in even release
>    versions of 3.x (3.2, 3.4, 3.6), you'll want to run the latest odd version
>    (3.3, 3.5, 3.7, etc) after the release containing the feature you want
>    access to (so, if the feature's introduced in 3.4 and we haven't dropped
>    3.5 yet, obviously you'd need to run 3.4).
>
>
> Are there going to be minor releases of the even releases, i.e. 3.2.1?
>

Not unless we discover critical bugs in 3.2, such as security
vulnerabilities or corruption issues.


>  Or will they all be delegated to 3.3.x -series?  Or will there be a
> series of identical releases like 3.1 and 3.0.1 with 3.2.1 and 3.3?
>

There's not going to be a 3.3.x series, there will be one 3.3 release
(unless there is a critical bug, as mentioned above).

There are two separate release lines going on:

3.0.1 -> 3.0.2 -> 3.0.3 -> 3.0.4 -> ... (every release is a bugfix)

3.1 -> 3.2 -> 3.3 -> 3.4 -> ... (odd numbers are bugfix releases, even
numbers may contain new features)


>
> This is only going to be the case during the transition phase from old
> release cycles to tick-tock. We're targeting changes to CI and quality
> focus going forward to greatly increase the stability of the odd releases
> of major branches (3.1, 3.3, etc) so, for the 4.X releases, our
> recommendation would be to run the highest # odd release for greatest
> stability.
>
>
> So here you tell to run 3.1, but above you tell to run 3.0.1?  Why is
> there a different release scheme specifically for 3.0.x instead of putting
> those fixes to 3.1?
>

We don't know how well the tick-tock release scheme will stabilize yet.  As
a safety net, we're doing our traditional release scheme for 3.0.x.


-- 
Tyler Hobbs
DataStax <http://datastax.com/>

Mime
View raw message