To answer your questions Jon. I have been against the freeze from day one. In my opinion it had a > negative impact on the project. >
It is simply an opinion. I stated it as such because I have no way to validate or invalidate that theory. Had we unfrozen trunk a year ago, we just > would have shipped another super buggy .0 release and kept our reputation > going. > In my opinion having an unfrozen trunk does not mean necessarily shipping a buggy release. I see them as 2 different choices: Do we have a frozen trunk? What are our criteria to ship a release? Once we've proven we can actually ship a working database, new features > sound great to me. > I agree with the fact that making C* more stable is the priority. I just would like us to have a clear plan for that. This thread was not about sacrificing stability. It is a pity that it came across like that. On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:50 PM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I am pointing to the implied signals about an organisation's priorities > > and values that are communicated by its actions > > As long as you keep thinking the expressions on this ML reflect an > organization's priorities and not the opinions of individual actors (like > my email about branching was because I didn't want to piss off Ekaterina > and Benjamin by making them constantly rebase), we're not going to get > anywhere. > > This thread isn't about 5.0 or a roadmap for it. If we want to talk about > that let's take it to another thread. > > Also, this thread wasn't intended to discuss what our bar of quality for a > release of 4.0 should be. I think that's a great topic. Let's take that to > another thread. > > I recommend we let this thread die and move on. > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:33 AM Benjamin Lerer < > benjamin.le...@datastax.com> > wrote: > > > Sorry, Benedict. My answer was probably not phrased in the correct way. > > I just believe that we should not look at the organizations behind the > > persons participating in the project. I am not my organization and it > does > > not push me in a direction or another. > > Of course, our opinions are somehow tainted by our organizations but that > > does not mean that individuals can be reduced to their organization. > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:33 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > bened...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > I believe that we should try to assume that everybody has positive > > > intentions. :-) > > > > > > What did I say that suggests I have assumed any negative intentions? > > > Sometimes this phrase reads as a thought-terminating cliché. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 29/06/2020, 13:28, "Benjamin Lerer" <benjamin.le...@datastax.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > If this is in response to my email, you misunderstand me. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, that was not a response. > > > Increasing stability was mentioned a lot in that thread. I am all > for > > > it. I > > > just wanted to raise the issue that the plan for that is not clear > at > > > least > > > for me. > > > > > > That is not to say there should not be agreed minimum deliverables, > > but > > > > they should be readily achievable in that time-frame. > > > > > > > > > > I am totally in favor of determining what the deliverables should > be. > > > > > > I am pointing to the implied signals about an organisation's > > > priorities and > > > > values that are communicated by its actions. > > > > > > > > > > I believe that we should try to assume that everybody has positive > > > intentions. :-) > > > I have been against the freeze from day one. In my opinion it had a > > > negative impact on the project. Now it is just a personal feeling > and > > > it > > > does not mean that I am not all in favor of delivering a product of > > > better > > > quality. > > > I have spent most of my first 2 years working on C* writing test > for > > > the > > > CQL code and that paid off in the long term as it seems that we do > > not > > > have > > > too many bugs in that area. > > > For Cassandra to grow we need both new features/improvements and > > > stability. > > > It is natural that some people push a bit more towards new > > > features\improvements and others towards stability. > > > I would be worried if everybody wanted to go in the same direction. > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:22 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > > bened...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > If this is in response to my email, you misunderstand me. There > > are > > > > distinct issues at play. To respond directly to the issue you > > > raise: I am > > > > personally inclined to pursue a release of 4.0 within some > time-box > > > - say > > > > 3-6 months. We have already done a huge amount to improve the > > > quality of > > > > the project since 3.x. That is not to say there should not be > > agreed > > > > minimum deliverables, but they should be readily achievable in > that > > > > time-frame. We can soon be confident of the highest quality .0 > > > release to > > > > date in the project, even if we have not delivered all that we > > > originally > > > > hoped on the quality assurance front. > > > > > > > > However, I am looking forward to the way the project delivers > 5.0, > > > and > > > > whether we will continue to improve. I am pointing to the > implied > > > signals > > > > about an organisation's priorities and values that are > communicated > > > by its > > > > actions. These signals are read by actors both internal and > > > external to > > > > the organisation, and shape their actions in turn. If there is a > > > > disconnect between the implied and expressed priorities, this > leads > > > to > > > > tensions; usually to the detriment of the expressed priorities, > > since > > > > actions speak louder than words. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 29/06/2020, 10:10, "Benjamin Lerer" < > > benjamin.le...@datastax.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I believe that we all need to see 4.0.0 being released. We > have > > > been > > > > frozen > > > > for too long in my opinions and some people simply believe > that > > > the > > > > project > > > > is dead. That is hurting us. > > > > > > > > That does not mean that I am not in favor of making that > > release > > > as > > > > stable > > > > as possible. > > > > What we miss in my opinion is a clear target and some > metrics. > > > When > > > > will we > > > > know that we can release 4.0? How are we measuring its > quality? > > > > If we cannot provide some answers to those questions we can > end > > > up > > > > spending > > > > our life searching for bugs and 4.0 will never be released. > > > > > > > > Maybe there is a clear plan in the mind of some of you guys. > It > > > is > > > > just not > > > > the case for me. So chances are that I am not the only one in > > > this > > > > case. > > > > > > > > The 4.0 Beta is nearly there, more than ever we need a clear > > > testing > > > > plan > > > > that will lead us to releasing 4.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 12:07 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > > > bened...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Just a heads up - this comes across as passive aggressive > > > sniping. > > > > I'm > > > > > sure you didn't mean it as such > > > > > > > > > > I think indirect criticism is a normal part of discourse, > > > > particularly in > > > > > public fora where it can be more polite and less disruptive > > > than > > > > direct > > > > > criticism. Ironically, this snippet of yours seem (to me) > to > > > be more > > > > > readily ascribed your epithet; which is fine, of course, > and > > > > pleasingly > > > > > meta. > > > > > > > > > > > very little has publically materialized on the project to > > > this > > > > point > > > > > that I know of > > > > > > > > > > I think you are wrong, here. Firstly, you overlook recent > > > work such > > > > as > > > > > (but not limited to): FQL, cassandra-diff, in-jvm dtests; > > also > > > the > > > > steady > > > > > drip of dozens of critical bugs found, and the work to fix > > > those > > > > bugs. It > > > > > is perhaps unfair to label "very little" work that has > > spanned > > > > several > > > > > years and uncovered perhaps the majority of serious > > > correctness bugs. > > > > > > > > > > Secondly, there is an important distinction to draw, > between > > QA > > > > projects > > > > > that are in progress but not yet published, and an absence > of > > > such > > > > > projects. We might also note feature development > endeavours > > > that > > > > have been > > > > > initiated, and whether work aims to improve quality or > expand > > > > > functionality. I look forward to seeing the balance of > > > investments > > > > shift > > > > > to match stated priorities in the near future. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 27/06/2020, 03:10, "Joshua McKenzie" < > > jmcken...@apache.org > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've seen a lot of talk from some quarters of a new > > > approach to > > > > > quality, > > > > > > but so far there have been few contributions from the > > > same > > > > quarters > > > > > > > > > > > Just a heads up - this comes across as passive > aggressive > > > > sniping. I'm > > > > > sure > > > > > you didn't mean it as such but it does read that way > (at > > > least > > > > to me). > > > > > > > > > > When it comes to quality, much like you said in another > > > thread > > > > > Benedict I > > > > > think we all need to be honest with ourselves. There's > > > been a > > > > lot of > > > > > talk > > > > > from *all* quarters but outside a lot of expression of > > > intent > > > > across > > > > > many > > > > > fronts (verbal, ML, JIRA, slack), very little has > > > publically > > > > > materialized > > > > > on the project to this point that I know of. > > > > > > > > > > I cleared out assignees on 40_quality_testing tickets > > > earlier > > > > this week > > > > > (overloading shepherds in this field was a mistake IMO > - > > > that's > > > > on me) > > > > > which has clarified for some contributors that they can > > > take > > > > that work > > > > > on. > > > > > There's still considerable uncertainty as to what the > > > scope is > > > > for > > > > > those > > > > > tickets and nobody really replied to Jordan pinging > > > shepherds for > > > > > clarification a long while ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:44 PM Dinesh Joshi < > > > djo...@apache.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 26, 2020, at 3:45 PM, David Capwell < > > > > dcapw...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ability to test their impact. Even simple > things > > > become > > > > hard > > > > > given > > > > > > the > > > > > > > fact only committers can run Jenkins tests, or you > > pay > > > money > > > > to be > > > > > able > > > > > > to > > > > > > > run the tests... If the intent is to make it > easier > > > for new > > > > > people to > > > > > > > contribute to the project, shouldn't the focus be > on > > > fixing > > > > their > > > > > pain > > > > > > > points such as testing? > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 on not branching and keeping focus on testing and > > > fixing > > > > 4.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sorry about the situation for non-committers. I > > > tried > > > > reaching > > > > > out to > > > > > > legal and infra in the past without a great response. > > If > > > > someone in > > > > > the > > > > > > community has a way to reach out and get clarity on > > > problems > > > > > affecting our > > > > > > contributors, it would be great. Otherwise, I will > try > > > to bug > > > > them > > > > > again. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dinesh > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > >
