Thank you all for your input.
I think an important topic is again to revise the lifecycle and ensure we
really have the vision on what is left until beta. I will start a separate
thread on the flaky tests situation soon.

For this particular ticket I see a couple of things:
- There are a lot of deletions of already not used code
- I implemented it still in alpha as per our agreement that this will give
us enough time for testing. Probably Dinesh as a reviewer can give some
valuable feedback/opinion on the patch.
- It definitely touches around important places but the important thing is
to see how exactly it touches, I think
- Considering it for alpha before the major testing in beta sounds
reasonable to me but I guess it also depends on people availability to
review it in detail and the exact test plans afterwards

On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 7:14, Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org>
wrote:

> I think our "pre-beta" criteria should also be our "not in a major"
> criteria.
>
> If work is prohibited because it invalidates our pre-release verification,
> then it should not land until we next perform pre-release verification,
> which only currently happens once per major.
>
> This could mean either landing less in a major, or permitting more in beta
> etc.
>
> On 26/05/2020, 19:24, "Joshua McKenzie" <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>     I think an interesting question that informs when to stop accepting
>     specific changes in a release is when we expect any extensive
> pre-release
>     testing to take place.
>
>     If we go by our release lifecycle, gutting deprecated code seems
> compatible
>     w/Alpha but I wouldn't endorse merging it into Beta:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle.
>     Since almost all of the 40_quality_testing epic stuff is also beta
> phase
>     and hasn't really taken off yet, it also seems like there will be
> extensive
>     testing after this phase transition.
>
>     All that being said, I'd advocate for marking FixVer 4.x to indicate
>     optionality and disallow merge of tickets like this after we're done
>     w/alpha phase in keeping w/our lifecycle doc in general.
>
>     Does that make sense? Should we consider revisiting and revising the
>     lifecycle doc re: larger deprecation / changes and cycle stages?
>
>
>
>     On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:53 PM Oleksandr Petrov <
>     oleksandr.pet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     > > 1) Would you block the release over this ticket?
>     >
>     > I would definitely not block the release on this ticket.
>     >
>     > > 2) Would you prioritize this ticket over testing?
>     >
>     > Same here, I would prioritise testing.
>     >
>     > > 3) Does fixing this ticket make 4.0 a more stable release?
>     >
>     > I wanted to give some context: I wrote that in August 2018. While I
> still
>     > believe it is important to get rid of this code, I'm disinclined to
> merge
>     > it into 4.0.
>     >
>     > Given that the patch is rather big (421 additions and 1,480
> deletions) and
>     > touches many important places, including parser, I would be extremely
>     > cautious to merge it that late in release cycle. It would be great
> to also
>     > hear arguments that would justify the risk.
>     >
>     > Thank you for starting this discussion,
>     > -- Alex
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:20 PM Ekaterina Dimitrova <
>     > ekaterina.dimitr...@datastax.com> wrote:
>     >
>     > > Dear all,
>     > >
>     > > Following the ticket review sent on 12th May I wanted to bring up
>     > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994: Remove
> COMPACT
>     > >
>     > > STORAGE internals before 4.0 release.
>     > >
>     > > It is already under review by Dinesh Joshi and Alex Petrov. Not a
>     > > blocker but already under review.
>     > >
>     > > Below are my responses to the questions brought up.
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > 1) Would you block the release over this
>     > >
>     > > ticket? - probably not
>     > >
>     > > 2) Would you prioritize this ticket over testing? - already
>     > > implemented but if there are some big changes needed after the
> review,
>     > > I doubt it we will want to prioritize over the testing
>     > >
>     > > 3) Does fixing
>     > > this ticket make 4.0 a more stable release? - I will just cite Alex
>     > > Petrov who reported this Jira and I think the rest of us would
> agree
>     > > with him here.
>     > >
>     > > "I would say it's quite important to clean up compact storage
>     > > internals in 4.0 before the release. It should have no visible
>     > > side-effects, but it'd be very good to have as it simplifies
> multiple
>     > > code paths."
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > Ekaterina Dimitrova
>     > > e. ekaterina.dimitr...@datastax.com
>     > > w. www.datastax.com
>     > >
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     > alex p
>     >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>
>

Reply via email to