Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9340F4AA-3423-4AAE-B666-77E514A2681C@ecyrd.com>
References: 
 <CALamADLf5GA+o+5bj_SKphYpfDjff5Nrq7haCHGOE+PBJv=S+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <0741C62B-0CF1-4D52-96B1-F5C91F12BC1A@ecyrd.com>
 <CA+4UHyOb_sNyHMPL8iWGTW8D4_hYSARH8i7OtxQ02EFrD5x7eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <25F79FF9-AFB9-4664-A19E-C2D03B9E2CE3@gmail.com>
 <CAAam9ssQ=M5Gf5DyyQDXt=75U-aF3TNT2W73KyuZYmReiPDNaw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKwe89CvcQcEDFDOmX3Zr8DgmgPT3hxuNm1=cZPOctPuLN5j4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKaZCX5NGvuQD0SM_9AXpDz9C-cKv=taiH6D_p7ZvHMFGCqm3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+4UHyMGBxMNmPGaLiMw_G662caVno1QOHAyM4jss+eqUmZiTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPH+nLOYKWWfkmSakudTNb17EQhjiQFZPdU3JWi4vRWShB+HFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <9340F4AA-3423-4AAE-B666-77E514A2681C@ecyrd.com>
From: Tyler Hobbs <tyler@datastax.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 11:17:59 -0600
Message-ID: 
 <CAAam9svx2gVyHLhwjjg0vz92eq_+MYTJg5OoaQ8_RXsN6AwiwA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RELEASE] Apache Cassandra 3.1 released
To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11396f427a4a1a0526a282ff

--001a11396f427a4a1a0526a282ff
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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/>

--001a11396f427a4a1a0526a282ff
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Janne Jalkanen <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:Janne.Jalkanen@ecyrd.com" target=3D"_blank">Janne.Jalkanen@ecy=
rd.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=
=3D""><div><br></div></span><div>So there is no reason why you would ever w=
ant to run 3.1 then?</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Probably not.<br=
></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div> =C2=A0Why was =
it released?</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>For consistency.=C2=A0 I=
t&#39;s the first release in the new tick-tock release scheme.=C2=A0 Skippi=
ng that would have been a bit strange (although I&#39;ll agree it&#39;s als=
o strange to have 3.0.1 =3D=3D 3.1).<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid=
;padding-left:1ex"><div> =C2=A0What is the lifecycle of 3.0.x? Will it beco=
me obsolete once 3.3 comes out?</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>3.0.x=
 will continue until 4.0.<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex"><span class=3D""><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr=
"><div><ul><li>If you want access to the new features introduced in even re=
lease versions of 3.x (3.2, 3.4, 3.6), you&#39;ll want to run the latest od=
d version (3.3, 3.5, 3.7, etc) after the release containing the feature you=
 want access to (so, if the feature&#39;s introduced in 3.4 and we haven=
9;t dropped 3.5 yet, obviously you&#39;d need to run 3.4).<br></li></ul></d=
iv></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Are there going to b=
e minor releases of the even releases, i.e. 3.2.1?</div></blockquote><div><=
br></div><div>Not unless we discover critical bugs in 3.2, such as security=
 vulnerabilities or corruption issues.<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex"><div> =C2=A0Or will they all be delegated to 3.3.x -se=
ries?=C2=A0 Or will there be a series of identical releases like 3.1 and 3.=
0.1 with 3.2.1 and 3.3?</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There&#39;s n=
ot going to be a 3.3.x series, there will be one 3.3 release (unless there =
is a critical bug, as mentioned above).<br><br></div><div>There are two sep=
arate release lines going on:<br><br></div><div>3.0.1 -&gt; 3.0.2 -&gt; 3.0=
.3 -&gt; 3.0.4 -&gt; ... (every release is a bugfix)<br><br></div><div>3.1 =
-&gt; 3.2 -&gt; 3.3 -&gt; 3.4 -&gt; ... (odd numbers are bugfix releases, e=
ven numbers may contain new features)<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote=
 class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><div>This is only going to be the case during the transition phase=
 from old release cycles to tick-tock. We&#39;re targeting changes to CI an=
d 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 re=
commendation would be to run the highest # odd release for greatest stabili=
ty.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>So here you tell to =
run 3.1, but above you tell to run 3.0.1?=C2=A0 Why is there a different re=
lease scheme specifically for 3.0.x instead of putting those fixes to 3.1?<=
/div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We don&#39;t know how well the tick-t=
ock release scheme will stabilize yet.=C2=A0 As a safety net, we&#39;re doi=
ng our traditional release scheme for 3.0.x.<br></div></div><br clear=3D"al=
l"><br>-- <br><div class=3D"gmail_signature"><font color=3D"#888888">Tyler =
Hobbs<span></span><br>
<a href=3D"http://datastax.com/" target=3D"_blank">DataStax</a><br></font><=
/div>
</div></div>

--001a11396f427a4a1a0526a282ff--