+1 to a release, but should we be explicit about alphas potentially having flaky test failures? I think the release lifecycle doc is really good, but I think when we find implied behavior it's an opportunity to make it more concrete. I don't want to be dogmatic here, but flaky tests definitely seem like something we would want users to be aware of as a possible risk of using alpha.
Cheers, Derek On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 3:40 AM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > Our release lifecycle docs¹ imply that we can release alphas despite > flaky test failures, which means we can cut and vote on a 4.1-alpha1 > release today. This is also on the presumption that point (2) on our > Cassandra CI Process docs² does not apply to pre-beta releases. > > Is there an appetite for this? > Any objections? > Any tickets about to land folk want us to wait on? > > regards, > Mick > > > 1) https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle > > 2) > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Cassandra+CI+Process > -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Derek Chen-Becker | | GPG Key available at https://keybase.io/dchenbecker and | | https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=derek%40chen-becker.org | | Fngrprnt: EB8A 6480 F0A3 C8EB C1E7 7F42 AFC5 AFEE 96E4 6ACC | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
