+1 on cutting an alpha and having a clear, documented test plan[1] for alpha. We need volunteers to drive the test plan, though. :)
Thanks, Dinesh [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans > On Aug 28, 2019, at 10:27 AM, Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > > Regarding the dynamic snitch improvements, it's gone through several rounds > of review already and there's been significant testing of it. Regarding > the token change, switching a number from 256 -> 16 isn't so invasive that > we shouldn't do it. There's a little extra work that needs to be done > there ideally to ensure safety, but it's again small enough where it > shouldn't be too big of a problem imo. Both current implementations (256 > tokens + our insanely over memory allocating dynamic snitch) limit the > ability of people to run large clusters, harming both availability and > performance. It's been extremely harmful for Cassandra's reputation and > I'd really like it if we could ship something where I don't have to > constantly apologize to people I'm trying to help for the land mine > defaults we put out there. > > To your point, I agree as a community we're lacking in an open, well > documented and up to date plan, and it needs to be addressed. I think the > virtual meetings idea held at a regular might help a bit with that, I > intend on participating there. > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:52 AM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> >>> 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 >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
