Please mark such bugs with fixVersion 5.0-beta If there are no more tickets that need API changes (i.e. those that should be marked fixVersion 5.0-alpha) this then indicates we do not need a 5.0-alpha3 release and can focus towards 5.0-beta1 (regardless of having blockers open to it).
Appreciate the attention 18993 is getting – we do have a shortlist of beta blockers that we gotta prioritise ! On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 at 18:33, Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > 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. > >> > > >
