Do I need permission to view this link? When I open it, an error appears, saying “It may have been deleted or you don't have permission to view it.”
Benjamin Lerer <b.le...@gmail.com> 于2023年11月6日周一 18:34写道： > I created a Dashboard to track the progress and remaining tasks for 5.0: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=593 > Everybody logged in should have access. Ping me if it is not the case. > > Le sam. 4 nov. 2023 à 19:54, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> a écrit : > >> >> 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. >>> >> >>> >>> >>>
