Re: Roadmap for 4.0
The only additional tickets I'd like to mention are:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13971 - Automatic
certificate management using Vault
- Stefan's Vault integration work. A sub-ticket, CASSANDRA-14102, addresses
encryption at-rest, subsumes CASSANDRA-9633 (SSTable encryption) - which I
doubt I would be able to get to any time this year. It would definitely be
nice to have a clarified encryption/security story for 4.0.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11990 - Address rows rather
than partitions in SASI
- a nice update for SASI, but not critical.
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 6:53 PM, Ben Bromhead <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Apologies all, I didn't realize I was responding to this discussion only on
> the @user list. One of the perils of responding to a thread that is on both
> user and dev...
> For context, I have included my response to Kurt's previous discussion on
> this topic as it only ended up on the user list.
> *After some further discussions with folks offline, I'd like to revive this
> discussion. *
> *As Kurt mentioned, to keep it simple I if we can simply build consensus
> around what is in for 4.0 and what is out. We can then start the process of
> working off a 4.0 branch towards betas and release candidates. Again as
> Kurt mentioned, assigning a timeline to it right now is difficult, but
> having a firm line in the sand around what features/patches are in, then
> limiting future 4.0 work to bug fixes will give folks a less nebulous
> target to work on. *
> *The other thing to mention is that once we have a 4.0 branch to work off,
> we at Instaclustr have a commitment to dogfooding the release candidates on
> our internal staging and internal production workloads before 4.0 becomes
> generally available. I know other folks have similar commitments and simply
> having a 4.0 branch with a clear list of things that are in or out will
> allow everyone to start testing and driving towards a quality release. *
> *The other thing is that there are already a large number of changes ready
> for 4.0, I would suggest not recommending tickets for 4.0 that have not yet
> been finished/have outstanding work unless you are the person working on it
> (or are offering to work on it instead) and can get it ready for review in
> a timely fashion. That way we can build a more realistic working target.
> For other major breaking changes, there is always 5.0 or 4.1 or whatever we
> end up doing :)*
> Thinking further about it, I would suggest a similar process that was
> applied to releasing 3.0, in order to get to 4.0:
> - Clean up ticket labeling. Move tickets unlikely to make it / be worked
> on for 4.0 to something else (e.g. 4.x or whatever).
> - Tickets labeled 4.0 will be the line in the sand, with some trigger
> ("done") event where all features not done by a certain event will
> move into the next release. For the 3.0 branch, this occurred after a
> large review of 8099. For 4.0 it could simply be resolving all current
> blockers/major tickets tagged 4.0... doesn't have to be / nor is it
> something I would strongly advocate.
> - Once we hit this "done" event. Cut a Cassandra-4.0 branch and start
> the alpha/beta/rc cycle from that branch, with only bugfixes going into
> - This, in my mind, is similar to the 3.0 approach
> but without the subsequent tick-tock :)
> There are currently 3 open blockers tagged 4.0, some are old and probably
> not really blockers anymore, there are other tickets that may/should be
> blockers on 4.0:
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13951
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13994
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12042
> In terms of major tickets that I would like to see land:
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7622 Virtual Tables
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13628 Internode netty
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13475 Pluggable
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9633 SSTable
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:26 PM Jeff Jirsa <jjirsa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Advantages of cutting a release sooner than later:
> > 1) The project needs to constantly progress forward. Releases are the
> > visible part of that.
> > 2) Having a huge changelog in a release increases the likelihood of bugs
> > that take time to find.
> > Advantages of a slower release:
> > 1) We don't do major versions often, and when we do breaking changes
> > (protocol, file format, etc), we should squeeze in as many as possible to
> > avoid having to roll new majors
> > 2) There are probably few people actually running 3.11 at scale, so
> > probably few people actually testing trunk.
> > In terms of "big" changes I'd like to see land, the ones that come to
> > are:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9754 - "Birch" (changes
> > file format)
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13442 - Transient
> > Replicas (probably adds new replication strategy or similar)
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13628 - Rest of the
> > internode netty stuff (no idea if this changes internode stuff, but I bet
> > it's a lot easier if it lands on a major)
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7622 - Virtual Tables
> > (selfish inclusion, probably doesn't need to be a major at all, and I
> > wouldn't even lose sleep if it slips, but I'd like to see it land)
> > Stuff I'm ok with slipping to 4.X or 5.0, but probably needs to land on a
> > major because we'll change something big (like gossip, or the way schema
> > passed, etc):
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9667 - Strongly
> > consistent membership
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10699 - Strongly
> > consistent schema
> > All that said, what I really care about is building confidence in the
> > release, which means an extended testing cycle. If all of those patches
> > landed tomorrow, I'd still expect us to be months away from a release,
> > because we need to bake the next major - there's too many changes to
> > out an alpha/beta/rc and hope someone actually runs it.
> > I don't believe Q3/Q4 is realistic, but I may be biased (or jaded). It's
> > possible Q3/Q4 alpha/beta is realistic, but definitely not a release.
> > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 8:29 PM, kurt greaves <kurt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >> Hi friends,
> >> *TL;DR: Making a plan for 4.0, ideally everyone interested should
> >> up to two lists, one for tickets they can contribute resources to
> >> finished, and one for features they think would be desirable for 4.0,
> >> not necessarily have the resources to commit to helping with.*
> >> So we had that Roadmap for 4.0 discussion last year, but there was never
> >> a conclusion or a plan that came from it. Times getting on and the
> >> list for 4.0 is getting pretty big. I'm thinking it would probably make
> >> sense to define some goals to getting 4.0 released/have an actual plan.
> >> is already going to be quite an unwieldy release with a lot of testing
> >> required.
> >> Note: the following is open to discussion, if people don't like the plan
> >> feel free to speak up. But in the end it's a pretty basic plan and I
> >> think we should over-complicate it, I also don't want to end up in a
> >> discussion where we "make a plan to make a plan". Regardless of whatever
> >> plan we do end up following it would still be valuable to have a list of
> >> tickets for 4.0 which is the overall goal of this email - so let's not
> >> too worked up on the details just yet (save that for after I
> >> summarise/follow up).
> >> // TODO
> >> I think the best way to go about this would be for us to come up with a
> >> list of JIRA's that we want included in 4.0, tag these as 4.0, and all
> >> other improvements as 4.x. We can then aim to release 4.0 once all the
> >> tagged tickets (+bug fixes/blockers) are complete.
> >> Now, the catch is that we obviously don't want to include too many
> >> tickets in 4.0, but at the same time we want to make sure 4.0 has an
> >> appealing feature set for both users/operators/developers. To minimise
> >> scope creep I think the following strategy will help:
> >> We should maintain two lists:
> >> 1. JIRA's that people want in 4.0 and can commit resources to getting
> >> them implemented in 4.0.
> >> 2. JIRA's that people simply think would be desirable for 4.0, but
> >> currently don't have anyone assigned to them or planned assignment.
> >> would probably make sense to label these with an additional tag in
> JIRA. *(User's
> >> please feel free to point out what you want here)*
> >> From list 1 will come our source of truth for when we release 4.0.
> >> aggregating a list I will summarise and we can vote on it).
> >> List 2 would be the "hopeful" list, where stories can be picked up from
> >> if resourcing allows, or where someone comes along and decides it's good
> >> enough to work on. I guess we can also base this on a vote system if we
> >> reach the point of including some of them. (but for the moment it's
> >> to get an idea of what users actually want).
> >> Please don't refrain from listing something that's already been
> >> mentioned. The purpose is to get an idea of everyone's
> >> and the resources available. We will need multiple resources for each
> >> ticket, so anywhere we share an interest will make for a lot easier work
> >> sharing.
> >> Note that we are only talking about improvements here. Bugs will be
> >> treated the same as always, and major issues/regressions we'll need to
> >> prior to 4.0 anyway.
> >> TIME FRAME
> >> Generally I think it's a bad idea to commit to any hard deadline, but we
> >> should have some time frames in mind. My idea would be to aim for a Q3/4
> >> 2018 release, and as we go we just review the outstanding improvements
> >> decide whether it's worth pushing it back or if we've got enough to
> >> release. I suppose keep this time frame in mind when choosing your
> >> We can aim for an earlier date (midyear?) but I figure the
> >> testing/validation/bugfixing period prior to release might drag on a
> bit so
> >> being a bit conservative here.
> >> The main goal would be to not let list 1 grow unless we're well ahead,
> >> and only cull from it if we're heavily over-committed or we decide the
> >> improvement can wait. I assume this all sounds like common sense but
> >> figured it's better to spell it out now.
> >> NEXT STEPS
> >> After 2 weeks/whenever the discussion dies off I'll consolidate all the
> >> tickets, relevant comments and follow up with a summary, where we can
> >> discuss/nitpick issues and come up with a final list to go ahead with.
> >> On a side note, in conjunction with this effort we'll obviously have to
> >> do something about validation and testing. I'll keep that out of this
> >> for now, but there will be a follow up so that those of us willing to
> >> validate/test trunk can avoid duplicating effort.
> >> REVIEW
> >> This is the list of "huge/breaking" tickets that got mentioned in the
> >> last roadmap discussion and their statuses. This is not terribly
> >> but just so we can keep in mind what we previously talked about. I
> think we
> >> leave it up to the relevant contributors to decide whether they want to
> >> the still open tickets into 4.0.
> >> CASSANDRA-9425 Immutable node-local schema
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9425> - Committed
> >> CASSANDRA-10699 Strongly consistent schema alterations
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10699> - Open, no
> >> discussion in quite some time.
> >> CASSANDRA-12229 NIO streaming
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12229> - Committed
> >> CASSANDRA-8457 NIO messaging
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8457> - Committed
> >> CASSANDRA-12345 Gossip 2.0
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12345> - Open, no sign
> >> of any action.
> >> CASSANDRA-9754 Make index info heap friendly for large CQL partitions
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9754> - In progress
> >> no update in a long time.
> >> CASSANDRA-11559 enhanced node representation
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11559> - Open, no
> >> change since early 2016.
> >> CASSANDRA-6246 epaxos
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6246> - In progress
> >> no update since Feb 2017.
> >> CASSANDRA-7544 storage port configurable per node
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7544> - Committed
> >> CASSANDRA-11115 remove thrift support
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11115> - Committed
> >> CASSANDRA-10857 dropping compact storage
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10857> - Committed
> >> To start us off...
> >> And here are my lists to get us started.
> >> 1.
> >> CASSANDRA-8460 - Tiered/Cold storage for TWCS
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8460>
> >> CASSANDRA-12783 - Batchlog redesign
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12783>
> >> CASSANDRA-11559 - Enchance node representation
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11559>
> >> CASSANDRA-12344 - Forward writes to replacement node with same
> >> address <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12344>
> >> CASSANDRA-8119 - More expressive Consistency Levels
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8119>
> >> CASSANDRA-14210 - Optimise SSTables upgrade task scheduling
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14210>
> >> CASSANDRA-10540 - RangeAwareCompaction
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10540>
> >> 2:
> >> CASSANDRA-10726 - Read repair inserts should not be blocking
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10726>
> >> CASSANDRA-9754 - Make index info heap friendly for large CQL partitions
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9754>
> >> CASSANDRA-12294 - LDAP auth
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12294>
> >> CASSANDRA-12151 - Audit logging
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12151>
> >> CASSANDRA-10495 - Fix streaming with vnodes
> >> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10495>
> >> Also, here's some handy JQL to start you off:
> >> project = CASSANDRA AND fixVersion in (4.x, 4.0) AND issue in
> >> watchedIssues() AND status != Resolved
> > --
> Ben Bromhead
> CTO | Instaclustr <https://www.instaclustr.com/>
> +1 650 284 9692
> Reliability at Scale
> Cassandra, Spark, Elasticsearch on AWS, Azure, GCP and Softlayer