> > dynamic snitch improvements, fixing token counts
> they're small enough By what axis of measurement out of curiosity? Risk to re-test and validate a final artifact? Do we have a more clear understanding of what testing has taken place across the community? The last I saw, our documented test plan <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans> hasn't been maintained or kept up to date <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA>. Is there another artifact reflecting what testing people have in flight to better reflect what risk of needing to re-test we have from these (and other) post-freeze changes? On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:52 AM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > Hey folks, > > I think it's time we cut a 4.0 alpha release. Before I put up a vote > thread, is there a reason not to have a 4.0 alpha before ApacheCon / > Cassandra Summit? > > There's a handful of small issues that I should be done for 4.0 (client > list in virtual tables, dynamic snitch improvements, fixing token counts), > I'm not trying to suggest we don't include them, but they're small enough I > think it's OK to merge them in following the first alpha. > > Jon >
