Re: Road to 5.0-GA (was: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-alpha2)

[Benedict]

Yep, data loss bugs are not any old bug. I’m concretely -1 (binding) releasing a beta with one that’s either under investigation or confirmed. As Scott says, hopefully it won’t come to that - the joy of deterministic testing is this should be straightforward to triage. On 4 Nov 2023, at 17:30, C. Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net> wrote: I’d happily be the first to vote -1(nb) on a release containing a known and reproducible bug that can result in data loss or an incorrect response to a query. And I certainly wouldn’t run it. Since we have a programmatic repro within just a few seconds, this should not take long to root-cause. On Friday, Alex worked to get this reproducing on a Cassandra branch rather than via unstaged changes. We should have a published / shareable example with details near the beginning of the week. – Scott On Nov 4, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:  I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 (assuming it is a bug). Before a beta? I could see that for rc or GA definitely, but having a known (especially non-regressive) data loss bug in a beta seems like it's compatible with the guarantees we're providing for it: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Release+Lifecycle This release is recommended for test/QA clusters where short(order of minutes) downtime during upgrades is not an issue On Sat, Nov 4, 2023, at 12:56 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: Totally agree with the others. Such an issue on its own should be a priority in any release. Looking forward to the reproduction test mentioned on the ticket. Thanks to Alex for his work on harry! On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 12:47, Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: Alex can confirm but I think it actually turns out to be a new bug in 5.0, but either way we should not cut a release with such a serious potential known issue. > On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:18, J. D. Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sounds like 18993 is not a regression in 5.0? But present in 4.1 as well?  So I would say we should fix it with the highest priority and get a new 4.1.x released. Blocking 5.0 beta voting is a secondary issue to me if we have a “data not being returned” issue in an existing release? > >> On Nov 4, 2023, at 11:09 AM, Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> I think before we cut a beta we need to have diagnosed and fixed 18993 (assuming it is a bug). >> >>>> On 4 Nov 2023, at 16:04, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>  >>>> >>>> With the publication of this release I would like to switch the >>>> default 'latest' docs on the website from 4.1 to 5.0.  Are there any >>>> objections to this ? >>> >>> >>> I would also like to propose the next 5.0 release to be 5.0-beta1 >>> >>> With the aim of reaching GA for the Summit, I would like to suggest we >>> work towards the best-case scenario of 5.0-beta1 in two weeks and >>> 5.0-rc1 first week Dec. >>> >>> I know this is a huge ask with lots of unknowns we can't actually >>> commit to.  But I believe it is a worthy goal, and possible if nothing >>> sideswipes us – but we'll need all the help we can get this month to >>> make it happen. >>