[DISCUSS] Removing support for java 8

[Blake Eggleston]

Hi all, I wanted to propose removing jdk8 support for 4.1. Active support ended 
back in March of this year, and I believe the community has built enough 
confidence in java 11 to make it an uncontroversial change for our next major 
release. Let me know what you think.

Thanks,

Blake

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing support for java 8

[Blake Eggleston]

Sorry, I meant trunk, not 4.1 :)

> On Aug 29, 2022, at 1:09 PM, Blake Eggleston  wrote:
> 
> Hi all, I wanted to propose removing jdk8 support for 4.1. Active support 
> ended back in March of this year, and I believe the community has built 
> enough confidence in java 11 to make it an uncontroversial change for our 
> next major release. Let me know what you think.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Blake

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing support for java 8

[J. D. Jordan]

+1 for removing on trunk. Pretty sure we already discussed that in the Java 17 
thread?  That trunk will move to 11+17?

> On Aug 29, 2022, at 3:40 PM, Blake Eggleston  wrote:
> 
> Sorry, I meant trunk, not 4.1 :)
> 
>> On Aug 29, 2022, at 1:09 PM, Blake Eggleston  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all, I wanted to propose removing jdk8 support for 4.1. Active support 
>> ended back in March of this year, and I believe the community has built 
>> enough confidence in java 11 to make it an uncontroversial change for our 
>> next major release. Let me know what you think.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Blake
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing support for java 8

[Francisco Guerrero]

+1 (nb) on removing java8 support from trunk.

On 2022/08/29 20:42:18 "J. D. Jordan" wrote:
> +1 for removing on trunk. Pretty sure we already discussed that in the Java 
> 17 thread?  That trunk will move to 11+17?
> 
> > On Aug 29, 2022, at 3:40 PM, Blake Eggleston  wrote:
> > 
> > Sorry, I meant trunk, not 4.1 :)
> > 
> >> On Aug 29, 2022, at 1:09 PM, Blake Eggleston  wrote:
> >> 
> >> Hi all, I wanted to propose removing jdk8 support for 4.1. Active support 
> >> ended back in March of this year, and I believe the community has built 
> >> enough confidence in java 11 to make it an uncontroversial change for our 
> >> next major release. Let me know what you think.
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> 
> >> Blake
> > 
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing support for java 8

[Blake Eggleston]

Yes I'd seen the 11+17 thread, but didn't see anything about an explicit jdk8 
removal (ie: removal from CI etc). Ekaterina informed me there was an earlier 
thread covering that though

> On Aug 29, 2022, at 1:09 PM, Blake Eggleston  wrote:
> 
> Hi all, I wanted to propose removing jdk8 support for 4.1. Active support 
> ended back in March of this year, and I believe the community has built 
> enough confidence in java 11 to make it an uncontroversial change for our 
> next major release. Let me know what you think.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Blake

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing support for java 8

[Brandon Williams]

+1 for removing it when we add 17, to avoid making extra work.

Kind Regards,
Brandon

On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 3:40 PM Blake Eggleston  wrote:
>
> Sorry, I meant trunk, not 4.1 :)
>
> > On Aug 29, 2022, at 1:09 PM, Blake Eggleston  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all, I wanted to propose removing jdk8 support for 4.1. Active support 
> > ended back in March of this year, and I believe the community has built 
> > enough confidence in java 11 to make it an uncontroversial change for our 
> > next major release. Let me know what you think.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Blake
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing support for java 8

[Blake Eggleston]

Can you say some more about what extra work you expect removing jdk8 to cause? 
I'd expect removing jdk8 to be mostly subtractive (from build.xml and circleci 
confs), and jdk17 support to be mostly additive. 

We're getting ready to merge the first set of accord integration patches, and 
the accord library requires java11+. My understanding is that jdk17 support in 
C* is still several months away, so if we can avoid making one a dependency on 
the other, that would be preferable.


> On Aug 29, 2022, at 2:01 PM, Brandon Williams  wrote:
> 
> +1 for removing it when we add 17, to avoid making extra work.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Brandon
> 
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 3:40 PM Blake Eggleston  wrote:
>> 
>> Sorry, I meant trunk, not 4.1 :)
>> 
>>> On Aug 29, 2022, at 1:09 PM, Blake Eggleston  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all, I wanted to propose removing jdk8 support for 4.1. Active support 
>>> ended back in March of this year, and I believe the community has built 
>>> enough confidence in java 11 to make it an uncontroversial change for our 
>>> next major release. Let me know what you think.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Blake
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing support for java 8

[Brandon Williams]

Off the top of my head I know all the packages are built with java8
right now, so those tests would fail.  I don't think there's any of it
that is too difficult, it's just going to be a lot of little things
that are probably easier to do in one pass instead of two.

Kind Regards,
Brandon

On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 4:25 PM Blake Eggleston  wrote:
>
> Can you say some more about what extra work you expect removing jdk8 to 
> cause? I'd expect removing jdk8 to be mostly subtractive (from build.xml and 
> circleci confs), and jdk17 support to be mostly additive.
>
> We're getting ready to merge the first set of accord integration patches, and 
> the accord library requires java11+. My understanding is that jdk17 support 
> in C* is still several months away, so if we can avoid making one a 
> dependency on the other, that would be preferable.
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2022, at 2:01 PM, Brandon Williams  wrote:
>
> +1 for removing it when we add 17, to avoid making extra work.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Brandon
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 3:40 PM Blake Eggleston  wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, I meant trunk, not 4.1 :)
>
> On Aug 29, 2022, at 1:09 PM, Blake Eggleston  wrote:
>
> Hi all, I wanted to propose removing jdk8 support for 4.1. Active support 
> ended back in March of this year, and I believe the community has built 
> enough confidence in java 11 to make it an uncontroversial change for our 
> next major release. Let me know what you think.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Blake
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing support for java 8

[Ekaterina Dimitrova]

We will need also Jenkins, cassandra-builds. We need to add also j11
upgrade tests and fix some other inconsistencies what jobs we run. I have
it on my list and some things partially ready. And I am sure I am missing
something.
As I said in Slack, I am not against, just trying to be optimal and
creating less noise when/where it is possible and be efficient so that
people on all ends can progress with whatever they work on. Let’s talk to
Mick and put down the pin-points and assess the plan? How about that?

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 17:25, Blake Eggleston  wrote:

> Can you say some more about what extra work you expect removing jdk8 to
> cause? I'd expect removing jdk8 to be mostly subtractive (from build.xml
> and circleci confs), and jdk17 support to be mostly additive.
>
> We're getting ready to merge the first set of accord integration patches,
> and the accord library requires java11+. My understanding is that jdk17
> support in C* is still several months away, so if we can avoid making one a
> dependency on the other, that would be preferable.
>
>
> On Aug 29, 2022, at 2:01 PM, Brandon Williams  wrote:
>
> +1 for removing it when we add 17, to avoid making extra work.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Brandon
>
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 3:40 PM Blake Eggleston 
> wrote:
>
>
> Sorry, I meant trunk, not 4.1 :)
>
> On Aug 29, 2022, at 1:09 PM, Blake Eggleston  wrote:
>
> Hi all, I wanted to propose removing jdk8 support for 4.1. Active support
> ended back in March of this year, and I believe the community has built
> enough confidence in java 11 to make it an uncontroversial change for our
> next major release. Let me know what you think.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Blake
>
>
>
>

Cassandra project status update 2022-08-29

[Josh McKenzie]

Going to be OOO the rest of this week so I figured I'd hit up a bit under the 2 
week mark.

4.1:
Pretty big spike in test failures on the latest run. The Butler dashboard here: 
https://butler.cassandra.apache.org/#/, and the details here: 
https://butler.cassandra.apache.org/#/ci/upstream/compare/Cassandra-4.1/cassandra-4.1
 are somewhat interesting.

Popping open the first 4 test failures for things that currently don't have 
tickets shows some of our usual suspects of "node already up" conflicts, 
timeouts, etc.
https://ci-cassandra.apache.org/job/Cassandra-4.1/149/testReport/dtest.jmx_test/TestJMX/test_compactionstats/
https://ci-cassandra.apache.org/job/Cassandra-4.1/149/testReport/dtest-novnode.bootstrap_test/TestBootstrap/test_bootstrap_with_reset_bootstrap_state/
https://ci-cassandra.apache.org/job/Cassandra-4.1/149/testReport/dtest-upgrade.upgrade_tests.upgrade_through_versions_test/TestUpgrade_indev_3_11_x_To_indev_4_1_x/test_parallel_upgrade/
https://ci-cassandra.apache.org/job/Cassandra-4.1/149/testReport/org.apache.cassandra.distributed.test/PaxosRepairTest/paxosRepairVersionGate/

My money's on test run 149 having some specific runtime env failures that we 
won't see re-occur. Given we were down to 4 failures on run 148, I say we sit 
tight and see how the next run goes.

In the butler dashboard, we see CASSANDRA-17461 (CASTest failure) that Benedict 
is looking into, and a CalledProcessError on 
dtest-novnode.auth_test.TestAuthRoles.test_role_caching_authenticated_user 
which has some flakiness to it; 10% in the last 30 runs in CI: 
https://ci-cassandra.apache.org/job/Cassandra-4.1/148/testReport/dtest-novnode.auth_test/TestAuthRoles/test_role_caching_authenticated_user/

If anyone has spare cycles to create a JIRA for that failure and take a look 
that'd be a huge help.

We discussed on a previous thread moving towards a "when a green run, go beta, 
when 3 green and no other tickets open, go GA" paradigm for the 4.1 release. 
When we get to a green run let's pick that discussion back up; seemed like we 
had a lazy consensus on the topic.


[New Contributors Getting Started]
As I asked on the last update: what are you interested in? To search JIRA for a 
topic of interest, replace "ReplaceTextHere" with the topic on the following 
JIRA search: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20cassandra%20AND%20resolution%20!%3D%20unresolved%20AND%20assignee%20is%20EMPTY%20AND%20summary%20~%20%27ReplaceTextHere%27%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20ASC

If you're not sure, are interested in all of it, or otherwise could use a 
little more guidance, we have a set of curated tickets that are unassigned we 
call "LHF", or low-hanging-fruit, you can access via the following link: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=484&quickFilter=2454&quickFilter=2160&quickFilter=2162

If you're looking for something a bit heftier, removing the "Starter Tickets" 
filter gives you 44 to choose from in 4.0.x (our next patch release, so limited 
to bugfixes): 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=484&quickFilter=2454&quickFilter=2160.

To get situated, here's an explanation of various types of contribution: 
https://cassandra.apache.org/_/community.html#how-to-contribute
An overview of the C* architecture: 
https://cassandra.apache.org/doc/latest/cassandra/architecture/overview.html
And here's our getting started contributing guide: 
https://cassandra.apache.org/_/development/index.html
We hang out in #cassandra-dev on https://the-asf.slack.com and there's a 
@cassandra_mentors alias you can use to reach a bunch of us that have 
volunteered to help newcomers get situated.


[Dev list Digest]
https://lists.apache.org/list?dev@cassandra.apache.org:lte=2w:

Given the slightly shorter time on calendar since our last update, we've been a 
*bit* quieter on the list.

Cassandra 4.0.6 was released - see here for the included changes in 
CHANGES.txt: 
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=blob_plain;f=CHANGES.txt;hb=refs/tags/cassandra-4.0.6
 and here for NEWS entries: 
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=blob_plain;f=NEWS.txt;hb=refs/tags/cassandra-4.0.6

Ekaterina reached out about resuming work on JDK17 support and looking for 
anyone that wanted to collaborate on 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16895. JDK8 is getting a little 
long in the tooth (more on that later) so support for a new JDK would be a 
critical step in the direction of deprecating older platforms.

Paulo Motta forwarded the link to the ASF community survey which can be found 
here: https://edi-asf.limesurvey.net/912832?lang=en

Andres de la Pena opened up discussion around a dynamic data masking feature in 
CEP-20 on the following email thread: 
https://lists.apache.org/thread/qsmxsymozymy6dy9tp5xw9gn5fhz9nt4 - as the 
project continues to mature and be used in more organizations with compliance 
requirements, these kind of features are incredibly

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing support for java 8

[Blake Eggleston]

Let me look into how much work it would take to get accord building with jdk8, 
that may create the least amount of work for everyone involved.

> On Aug 29, 2022, at 2:42 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova  
> wrote:
> 
> We will need also Jenkins, cassandra-builds. We need to add also j11 upgrade 
> tests and fix some other inconsistencies what jobs we run. I have it on my 
> list and some things partially ready. And I am sure I am missing something. 
> As I said in Slack, I am not against, just trying to be optimal and creating 
> less noise when/where it is possible and be efficient so that people on all 
> ends can progress with whatever they work on. Let’s talk to Mick and put down 
> the pin-points and assess the plan? How about that? 
> 
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 17:25, Blake Eggleston  > wrote:
> Can you say some more about what extra work you expect removing jdk8 to 
> cause? I'd expect removing jdk8 to be mostly subtractive (from build.xml and 
> circleci confs), and jdk17 support to be mostly additive. 
> 
> We're getting ready to merge the first set of accord integration patches, and 
> the accord library requires java11+. My understanding is that jdk17 support 
> in C* is still several months away, so if we can avoid making one a 
> dependency on the other, that would be preferable.
> 
> 
>> On Aug 29, 2022, at 2:01 PM, Brandon Williams > > wrote:
>> 
>> +1 for removing it when we add 17, to avoid making extra work.
>> 
>> Kind Regards,
>> Brandon
>> 
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 3:40 PM Blake Eggleston > > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Sorry, I meant trunk, not 4.1 :)
>>> 
 On Aug 29, 2022, at 1:09 PM, Blake Eggleston >>> > wrote:
 
 Hi all, I wanted to propose removing jdk8 support for 4.1. Active support 
 ended back in March of this year, and I believe the community has built 
 enough confidence in java 11 to make it an uncontroversial change for our 
 next major release. Let me know what you think.
 
 Thanks,
 
 Blake
>>> 
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Removing support for java 8

[Mick Semb Wever]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 23:01, Brandon Williams  wrote:

> +1 for removing it when we add 17, to avoid making extra work.
>


+1 on that^