Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

Oh I completely agree with you. I was just trying to explain that getting to 2/3 failures is a realistic target. +1 also on the amendment. On 12/1/22 17:39, Joseph Lynch wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 3:25 AM Berenguer Blasi > wrote: >> jenkins CI was at 2/3 flakies consistently post 4.0 relea

[DICSUSS] Marketing contributions

Chris Thornett, Diogenese Topper and I compiled a recap of the marketing work we contributed to Cassandra in 2021. We also developed a recommended approach for 2022. Our aim is to be a resource that advances the community's interests, so we would greatly appreciate your input here and/or in the dec

[DISCUSS] Marketing contributions

Chris Thornett, Diogenese Topper and I compiled a recap of the marketing work we contributed to Cassandra in 2021. We also developed a recommended approach for 2022. Our aim is to be a resource that advances the community's interests, so we would greatly appreciate your input here and/or in the dec

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

> "All releases by default are expected to have a green test run on > ci-cassandra Jenkins. In exceptional circumstances (security incidents, data > loss, etc requiring hotfix), members with binding votes on a release may > choose to approve a release with known failing tests." +1 with amendmen

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

> > > "All releases by default are expected to have a green test run on > ci-cassandra Jenkins. In exceptional circumstances (security incidents, > data loss, etc requiring hotfix), members with binding votes on a release > may choose to approve a release with known failing tests." > +1, thanks J

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

+1nb with the amendment On 2022/01/12 21:03:08 Andrés de la Peña wrote: > Still +1 with the amendment > > On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 19:57, C. Scott Andreas wrote: > > > +1nb, with and without the amendment. > > > > Reason for mentioning without: I see the ability to cut a release to > > address a

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

Still +1 with the amendment On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 19:57, C. Scott Andreas wrote: > +1nb, with and without the amendment. > > Reason for mentioning without: I see the ability to cut a release to > address an urgent security or data loss issue as one of the strongest > arguments for maintaining g

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

I agree with Scott’s sentiments. If we are keeping a green CI then an urgent release with green CI should not be hard. In the worst case you do the “urgent” release as a single commit fix on top of the previous release tag, not by cutting the current dev branch, in that case you should easily

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

+1nb, with and without the amendment.Reason for mentioning without: I see the ability to cut a release to address an urgent security or data loss issue as one of the strongest arguments for maintaining green CI as a resting state so we are ready in the event of an emergency.Test results that we

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

+1 > On Jan 12, 2022, at 8:39 AM, Joseph Lynch wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 3:25 AM Berenguer Blasi > wrote: >> >> jenkins CI was at 2/3 flakies consistently post 4.0 release. > > That is really impressive and I absolutely don't mean to downplay that > achievement. > >> Then things bro

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

I remain +1 with the amendment.

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

> > "All releases by default are expected to have a green test run on > ci-cassandra Jenkins. In exceptional circumstances (security incidents, > data loss, etc requiring hotfix), members with binding votes on a release > may choose to approve a release with known failing tests." +1 with the amen

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release cut

+1 On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 1:21 PM Brandon Williams wrote: > +1 to 4.1 in May. > > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 6:46 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > >> > We cut 4.0 in May and released it in July. It is difficult to plan for a >> release date so we should probably agree on the cut date. One year after >> 4

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

+1 w/ Joey's amendment On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 13:00, Michael Shuler wrote: > (still) +1 as amended > > Michael > > On 1/12/22 11:54, Caleb Rackliffe wrote: > > +1 w/ Joey's amendment > > > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:04 AM Joshua McKenzie > > wrote: > > > > I'

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

(still) +1 as amended Michael On 1/12/22 11:54, Caleb Rackliffe wrote: +1 w/ Joey's amendment On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:04 AM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: I'd say an amendment with a directional poll would be fine. I don't think this is controversial. T

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

+1 w/ Joey's amendment On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:04 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > I'd say an amendment with a directional poll would be fine. I don't think > this is controversial. > > That's me taking "the spirit of the law" rather than the letter though. > I'm good either way. > > ~Josh > > On

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

I'd say an amendment with a directional poll would be fine. I don't think this is controversial. That's me taking "the spirit of the law" rather than the letter though. I'm good either way. ~Josh On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:51 AM Joseph Lynch wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:43 AM Joshua McK

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 11:43 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > I fully concede your point and concern Joey but I propose we phrase that > differently to emphasize the importance of clean tests. > > "All releases by default are expected to have a green test run on > ci-cassandra Jenkins. In exceptio

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

I fully concede your point and concern Joey but I propose we phrase that differently to emphasize the importance of clean tests. "All releases by default are expected to have a green test run on ci-cassandra Jenkins. In exceptional circumstances (security incidents, data loss, etc requiring hotfix

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 3:25 AM Berenguer Blasi wrote: > > jenkins CI was at 2/3 flakies consistently post 4.0 release. That is really impressive and I absolutely don't mean to downplay that achievement. > Then things broke and we've been working hard to get back to the 2/3 flakies. > Most > cu

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

I've witnessed PMCs -1 releases due to failing tests or bugs reported by users before, but prior to everyone's awesome work on CI I think a number of times folks might have been voting without knowing what the results of the full test runs were. One of the amazing contributions of this group (and o

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

“I particularly like the suggestion PMCs can use failing tests as a reason to -1, but we do have critical patch releases now and again and common sense in getting such releases out quickly needs to be applied. ” For some reason I assumed this would always be the case in case of emergency, to consi

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 1:24 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > Changing my vote to -1, aligned with Joey's concern here. (Thank you for > raising it.) > > I particularly like the suggestion PMCs can use failing tests as a reason to > -1, but we do have critical patch releases now and again and commo

Re: [VOTE] Formalizing our CI process

Hi Joseph jenkins CI was at 2/3 flakies consistently post 4.0 release. Then things broke and we've been working hard to get back to the 2/3 flakies. Most current failures imo are timeuuid C17133 or early termination of process C17140 related afaik. So getting back to the 2/3 'impossible' flakies s