On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Gary Dusbabek wrote:
> I've been uncomfortable with the amount of features I perceive are
> going into our maintenance releases for a while now. [...] IMO,
> maintenance releases (0.7.1, 0.7.2, etc.) should only contain bug
> fixes and *carefully* vetted features
As a user, this sounds like great news. To see the consensus on this
issue is reassuring.
For me, release stability and planning are more important that new
features. I would rather wait longer for the features if it means I'm
getting a solid release. It would be great if there were some clearing
strong unbinding +1 :)
I think that there were several lessons learned in the 0.6.x line about walking
that line. Wrt regression testing, hopefully the distributed tests (thanks Stu
and Kelvin and others!) will act as a core for something like that. I would
imagine that heavy loads can be uti
+1
I'm also concerned with our lack of regression testing. A lot of this is
done by individual committers firing up EC2 clusters and running basic
sanity checks and workloads. Most of the bugs we are finding pop up under
heavy load.
It would be great if the community could identify and contribu
+1.
Cassandra has matured a lot lately and more users are relying heavily on it in
production. For those users, including us, stability and predictability becomes
very important.
Not including new and potentially unstable features in maintenance releases is
an easy way to decrease risk at a lo
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Peter Schuller
wrote:
> For example, from the point of view of the user, I think that
> things like CASSANDRA-1992 should preferably result in an almost
> immediate bugfix-only release with instructions and impact information
> for users.
+1
--
Jonathan Ellis
P
> I'm willing to concede that I may have an abnormally conservative
> opinion about this. But I wanted to voice my concern in hopes we can
> improve the quality and delivery of our maintenance releases.
(speaking now from the perspective of a consumer, disregarding the
implications on development
Qualified +1 from me -- I went back and checked the 3 prior 0.7.1
votes, and all of them were canceled because of regressions from the
#1905/#1959/#2058 series, which was a bug fix ("make dynamic snitch
actually work") not a new feature. It turned out to be more work to
get all the corner cases wo
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Gary Dusbabek wrote:
> I've been uncomfortable with the amount of features I perceive are
> going into our maintenance releases for a while now. I thought it
> would stop after we committed ourselves to having a more predictable
> major release schedule. But gett
