Is it common to have such strict release criteria from RC to GA... Release Candidate (RC)
- Thorough testing is performed, and if no bugs are found within a testing period of one month, release is promoted to GA. - If bugs are found, fixes are made and above step is repeated That seems overly tough criteria (no bugs for a month?). Maybe this needs to be clarified to state the severity of bug in which a promotion will not happen, and the clock will start over? Or am I misinterpretting. Otherwise, yes, this is something I can get onboard with. Thanks! On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 11:16 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti < sumanth.pasupuleti...@gmail.com> wrote: > One more call for any additional comments/ feedback on the release > lifecycle document > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit# > > Thanks, > Sumanth > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 1:01 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti < > sumanth.pasupuleti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Submitted patch to add release lifecycle information to the website > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15249 > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 6:57 AM Oleksandr Petrov < > > oleksandr.pet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Maybe a bit off-topic: > >> > >> Before we cut a release, we should make sure we take care of beta > protocol > >> [1], include released driver versions [2] and remove compact storage > >> remainders [3]. Third one is optional, but I'd argue we should do it > >> sooner > >> rather than later. > >> > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14973 > >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951 > >> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994 > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti < > >> sumanth.pasupuleti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks for the feedback Scott. I have incorporated all the incremental > >> > feedback I have thus far. > >> > > >> > Looking for any additional feedback folks may have. > >> > > >> > > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit# > >> > > >> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Thanks for starting this discussion, Sumanth! Added a round of > >> comments > >> > as > >> > > well. > >> > > > >> > > Summarizing my non-binding feedback: I feel that many of the items > >> under > >> > > "Alpha" and "Beta" should be achieved prior to the release of an > >> alpha, > >> > > especially those related to correctness/safety, scope lock, feature > >> > > completeness, deprecation, and backwards compatibility. > Establishing a > >> > > higher standard for official project releases (even at the alpha and > >> beta > >> > > stage) will help us really polish the final build together. > >> > > > >> > > Ideally, I feel that contributors should have completed extensive > >> > > testing/validation to ensure that no critical or severe bugs exist > >> prior > >> > to > >> > > the release of an alpha (e.g., data loss, consistency violations, > >> > incorrect > >> > > responses to queries, etc). Perhaps we can add a line to this > effect. > >> > > > >> > > Ensuring that we've met that bar prior to alpha will help us focus > the > >> > > final stages of the release on gathering feedback from users + > >> developers > >> > > to validate tooling and automation; compatibility with less > >> commonly-used > >> > > client libraries, testing new features, evaluating performance and > >> > > stability under their workloads, etc. > >> > > > >> > > – Scott > >> > > > >> > > On 6/11/19, 6:45 AM, "Sumanth Pasupuleti" < > >> > > sumanth.pasupuleti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Thanks for the feedback on the product stages/ release life > cycle > >> > > document. > >> > > I have incorporated the suggestions and looking for any > additional > >> > > feedback > >> > > folks may have. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit# > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Sumanth > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:43 PM Scott Andreas < > >> sc...@paradoxica.net > >> > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Echoing Jon’s point here – > >> > > > > >> > > > JH: “My thinking is I'd like to be able to recommend 4.0.0 as > a > >> > > production > >> > > > ready > >> > > > database for business critical cases” > >> > > > > >> > > > I feel that this is a standard that is both appropriate and > >> > > achievable, > >> > > > and one I’m legitimately excited about. > >> > > > > >> > > > Re: the current state of the test plan wiki in Confluence, I > owe > >> > > another > >> > > > pass through. There has been a lot of progress here, but I’ve > >> let > >> > > perfect > >> > > > be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll complete > >> that > >> > > pass > >> > > > later this week. > >> > > > > >> > > > Cheers, > >> > > > > >> > > > — Scott > >> > > > > >> > > > > On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi < > djo...@apache.org > >> > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > +1. Wiki could be useful to document what the overall plan. > >> Jira > >> > to > >> > > > track progress. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Dinesh > >> > > > > > >> > > > >>> On May 28, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Joshua McKenzie < > >> > > jmcken...@apache.org> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is > >> cut. > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a > >> great > >> > > look > >> > > > for > >> > > > >> the project. > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already. > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've > >> > > backchanneled > >> > > > >> with) believe this to be true as well, the referenced wiki > >> > > page[1] and > >> > > > >> jql[2] doesn't look like it's an up to date reflection of > the > >> > > testing > >> > > > >> efforts going on. Is there another place this information > is > >> > > stored / > >> > > > >> queryable we can surface to people to keep us all > >> coordinated? > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> [1] > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans > >> > > > >> [2] > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14862?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20%20labels%20%3D%204.0-QA > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:57 PM sankalp kohli < > >> > > kohlisank...@gmail.com> > >> > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >>> Hi Jon, > >> > > > >>> When you say 4.0 release, how do u match it with > >> 3.0 > >> > > minor > >> > > > >>> releases. The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod > till > >> > .10 > >> > > is > >> > > > cut. > >> > > > >>> Also due to heavy investment in testing, I dont think it > >> will > >> > > take as > >> > > > long > >> > > > >>> as 3.0 but want to know what is your thinking with this. > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>> Thanks, > >> > > > >>> Sankalp > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > >>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jon Haddad < > >> j...@jonhaddad.com > >> > > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> Sept is a pretty long ways off. I think the ideal case > is > >> we > >> > > can > >> > > > >>> announce > >> > > > >>>> 4.0 release at the summit. I'm not putting this as a "do > >> or > >> > > die" > >> > > > date, > >> > > > >>> and > >> > > > >>>> I don't think we need to announce it or make promises. > >> > > Sticking with > >> > > > >>> "when > >> > > > >>>> it's ready" is the right approach, but we need a target, > >> and > >> > > this is > >> > > > imo > >> > > > >>> a > >> > > > >>>> good one. > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> This date also gives us a pretty good runway. We could > cut > >> > our > >> > > first > >> > > > >>>> alphas in mid June / early July, betas in August and > >> release > >> > in > >> > > Sept. > >> > > > >>>> There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already. > >> > > > >>>> Landing CASSANDRA-15066 will put us in a pretty good > spot. > >> > > We've > >> > > > >>> developed > >> > > > >>>> tooling at TLP that will make it a lot easier to spin up > >> dev > >> > > clusters > >> > > > in > >> > > > >>>> AWS as well as stress test them. I've written about > this a > >> > few > >> > > times > >> > > > in > >> > > > >>>> the past, and I'll have a few blog posts coming up that > >> will > >> > > help show > >> > > > >>> this > >> > > > >>>> in more details. > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> There's some other quality of life things we should try > to > >> > > hammer out > >> > > > >>>> before then. Updating our default JVM settings would be > >> nice, > >> > > for > >> > > > >>>> example. Improving documentation (the data modeling > >> section > >> > in > >> > > > >>>> particular), fixing the dynamic snitch issues [1], and > some > >> > > > improvements > >> > > > >>> to > >> > > > >>>> virtual tables like exposing the sstable metadata [2], > and > >> > > exposing > >> > > > table > >> > > > >>>> statistics [3] come to mind. The dynamic snitch > >> improvement > >> > > will help > >> > > > >>>> performance in a big way, and the virtual tables will go > a > >> > long > >> > > way to > >> > > > >>>> helping with quality of life. I showed a few folks > virtual > >> > > tables at > >> > > > the > >> > > > >>>> Accelerate conference last week and the missing table > >> > > statistics was a > >> > > > >>> big > >> > > > >>>> shock. If we can get them in, it'll be a big help to > >> > operators. > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> [1] > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14459 > >> > > > >>>> [2] > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14630 > >> > > > >>>> [3] > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14572 > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>>>> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 2:36 PM Nate McCall < > >> > > zznat...@gmail.com> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> Hi Sumanth, > >> > > > >>>>> Thank you so much for taking the time to put this > >> together. > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> Cheers, > >> > > > >>>>> -Nate > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti < > >> > > > >>>>> sumanth.pasupuleti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> I have taken an initial stab at documenting release > types > >> > and > >> > > exit > >> > > > >>>>> criteria > >> > > > >>>>>> in a google doc, to get us started, and to collaborate > >> on. > >> > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bS6sr-HSrHFjZb0welife6Qx7u3ZDgRiAoENMLYlfz8/edit?usp=sharing > >> > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> Thanks, > >> > > > >>>>>> Sumanth > >> > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:04 PM Dinesh Joshi < > >> > > djo...@apache.org> > >> > > > >>>> wrote: > >> > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> Sankalp, > >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> Great point. This is the page created for testing. > >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/4.0+Quality%3A+Components+and+Test+Plans > >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> I think we need to define the various release types > and > >> the > >> > > exit > >> > > > >>>>> criteria > >> > > > >>>>>>> for each type of release. Anybody want to take a stab > at > >> > > this or > >> > > > >>>> start > >> > > > >>>>> a > >> > > > >>>>>>> thread to discuss it? > >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> Dinesh > >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:57 AM, sankalp kohli < > >> > > > >>>> kohlisank...@gmail.com> > >> > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> Hi, > >> > > > >>>>>>>> Is there a page where it is written what is expected > >> from > >> > > an > >> > > > >>>>> alpha, > >> > > > >>>>>>>> beta, rc and a 4.0 release? > >> > > > >>>>>>>> Also how are we coming up with Q4 2019 timeline. Is > >> this > >> > for > >> > > > >>> alpha, > >> > > > >>>>>> beta, > >> > > > >>>>>>>> rc or 4.0 release? > >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >> > > > >>>>>>>> Sankalp > >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:27 AM Attila Wind > >> > > > >>>> <attilaw@swf.technology > >> > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > > >>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> +1+1+1 I read a blog post was talking about last > >> sept(?) > >> > to > >> > > > >>> freeze > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> features and start extensive testing. Maybe its > really > >> > > time to > >> > > > >>> hit > >> > > > >>>>> it! > >> > > > >>>>>>> :-) > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Attila Wind > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/attilaw > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Mobile: +36 31 7811355 > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 2019. 05. 23. 19:30, ajs6f wrote: > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 in the fullest degree. A date that needs to be > >> > changed > >> > > is > >> > > > >>>> still > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> enormously more attractive than no date at all. > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Adam Soroka > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti < > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> spasupul...@netflix.com.INVALID> wrote: > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Having at least a ballpark target on the website > >> will > >> > > > >>> definitely > >> > > > >>>>>> help. > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> +1 > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> on setting it to Q4 2019 for now. > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 8:52 AM Dinesh Joshi < > >> > > > >>> djo...@apache.org > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on setting a date. > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dinesh > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM, Michael Shuler < > >> > > > >>>>>>> mich...@pbandjelly.org> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had 4.0 listed as TBD release date for a > >> very > >> > > long > >> > > > >>> time. > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday, Alexander Dejanovski got a "when's > 4.0 > >> > > going to > >> > > > >>>>>> release?" > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> question after his repair talk and he suggested > >> > > possibly Q4 > >> > > > >>>> 2019. > >> > > > >>>>>>> This > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> morning Nate McCall hinted at possibly being > close > >> by > >> > > > >>> ApacheCon > >> > > > >>>>> Las > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> Vegas > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> in September. These got me thinking.. > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Think we can we shoot for having a 4.0 > >> alpha/beta/rc > >> > > ready > >> > > > >>> to > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> announce/release at ApacheCon? At that time, > we'll > >> > have > >> > > been > >> > > > >>>>> frozen > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> for 1 > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> year, and I think we can. We'll GA release when > >> it's > >> > > ready, > >> > > > >>>> but I > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> think Q4 > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> could be an realistic target. > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> With that said, I'd like to change "TBD" on the > >> > > downloads > >> > > > >>> page > >> > > > >>>>> to > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> "Est. > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Q4 2019". We can always push or pull the > estimate, > >> > but I > >> > > > >>> think > >> > > > >>>>> it's > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> time to > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have a goal line. This lines up with ApacheCon > >> nicely > >> > > for a > >> > > > >>>>> preview > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> release. > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any concerns or objections to editing the > download > >> > > page? > >> > > > >>> Have > >> > > > >>>>> some > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> other > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> goal timeframe in mind? > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Warm regards, > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >> > > > >>> dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > >> > > > >>>> dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >> > > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > >> > > > >>> dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >> > > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > >> > > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > >> > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > > > >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > >> > > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > >>>>> > >> > > > >>>> > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > >> dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> alex p > >> > > >
