s/materialised views/aggregates/

also we expect to have our first larger production 3.7 LTS cluster in the
next few months.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 at 15:38 Ben Bromhead <b...@instaclustr.com> wrote:

> We have a few small customers clusters running on our 3.7 LTS release...
> though we are not calling it production ready yet.
>
> We also just moved our internal metrics cluster from 2.2 to 3.7 LTS to get
> materialised views and to get some 3.x production experience.
>
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 at 14:27 Carlos Rolo <r...@pythian.com> wrote:
>
> No Cluster in tick-tock.
>
> Actually reverted a couple to 3.0.x
>
> Regards,
>
> Carlos Juzarte Rolo
> Cassandra Consultant / Datastax Certified Architect / Cassandra MVP
>
> Pythian - Love your data
>
> rolo@pythian | Twitter: @cjrolo | Skype: cjr2k3 | Linkedin:
> *linkedin.com/in/carlosjuzarterolo
> <http://linkedin.com/in/carlosjuzarterolo>*
> Mobile: +351 918 918 100 <+351%20918%20918%20100>
> www.pythian.com
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:20 PM, DuyHai Doan <doanduy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Be very careful, there is a serious bug about AND/OR semantics, not
> solved
> > yet and not going to be solved any soon:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12674
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Jeff Jirsa <jeff.ji...@crowdstrike.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > We’ll be voting in the very near future on timing of major releases and
> > > release strategy. 4.0 won’t happen until that vote takes place.
> > >
> > > But since you asked, I have ONE tick/tock (3.9) cluster being qualified
> > > for production because it needs SASI.
> > >
> > > - Jeff
> > >
> > > On 11/17/16, 9:59 AM, "Jonathan Haddad" <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I think it might be worth considering adopting the release strategy
> > before
> > > >4.0 release.  Are any PMC members putting tick tock in prod? Does
> anyone
> > > >even trust it?  What's the downside of changing the release cycle
> > > >independently from 4.0?
> > > >
> > > >On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM Jason Brown <jasedbr...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Jason,
> > > >
> > > >That's a separate topic, but we will have a different vote on how the
> > > >branching/release strategy should be for the future.
> > > >
> > > >On Thursday, November 17, 2016, jason zhao yang <
> > > zhaoyangsingap...@gmail.com
> > > >>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> Will we still use tick-tock release for 4.x and 4.0.x ?
> > > >>
> > > >> Stefan Podkowinski <spo...@gmail.com <javascript:;>>于2016年11月16日周三
> > > >> 下午4:52写道:
> > > >>
> > > >> > From my understanding, this will also effect EOL dates of other
> > > >branches.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "We will maintain the 2.2 stability series until 4.0 is released,
> > and
> > > >3.0
> > > >> > for six months after that.".
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com
> > > >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Agreed. As long as we have a goal I don't see why we have to
> > adhere
> > > to
> > > >> > > arbitrary date for 4.0.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Nov 16, 2016 1:45 PM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" <
> > alek...@datastax.com
> > > >> <javascript:;>>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > I’ll comment on the broader issue, but right now I want to
> > > elaborate
> > > >> on
> > > >> > > > 3.11/January/arbitrary cutoff date.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Doesn’t matter what the original plan was. We should continue
> > with
> > > >> 3.X
> > > >> > > > until all the 4.0 blockers have been
> > > >> > > > committed - and there are quite a few of them remaining yet.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > So given all the holidays, and the tickets remaining, I’ll
> > > >personally
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > > surprised if 4.0 comes out before
> > > >> > > > February/March and 3.13/3.14. Nor do I think it’s an issue.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > —
> > > >> > > > AY
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On 16 November 2016 at 00:39:03, Mick Semb Wever (
> > > >> > m...@thelastpickle.com <javascript:;>
> > > >> > > )
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On 4 November 2016 at 13:47, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com
> > > >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > Specifically, this should be "new stuff that could/will
> break
> > > >> things"
> > > >> > > > > given we are upping
> > > >> > > > > the major version.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > How does this co-ordinate with the tick-tock versioning¹
> leading
> > > up
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > 4.0 release?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > To just stop tick-tock and then say yeehaa let's jam in all
> the
> > > >> > breaking
> > > >> > > > changes we really want seems to be throwing away some of the
> > > learnt
> > > >> > > wisdom,
> > > >> > > > and not doing a very sane transition from tick-tock to
> > > >> > > > features/testing/stable². I really hope all this is done in a
> > way
> > > >> that
> > > >> > > > continues us down the path towards a stable-master.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > For example, are we fixing the release of 4.0 to November? or
> > > >> > continuing
> > > >> > > > tick-tocks until we complete the 4.0 roadmap? or starting the
> > > >> > > > features/testing/stable branching approach with 3.11?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Background:
> > > >> > > > ¹) Sylvain wrote in an earlier thread titled "A Home for 4.0"
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > And as 4.0 was initially supposed to come after 3.11, which
> is
> > > >> > coming,
> > > >> > > > it's probably time to have a home for those tickets.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > ²) The new versioning scheme slated for 4.0, per the
> "Proposal -
> > > >> 3.5.1"
> > > >> > > > thread
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > three branch plan with “features”, “testing”, and “stable”
> > > >starting
> > > >> > > with
> > > >> > > > 4.0?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Mick
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
> --
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> --
> Ben Bromhead
> CTO | Instaclustr <https://www.instaclustr.com/>
> +1 650 284 9692 <(650)%20284-9692>
> Managed Cassandra / Spark on AWS, Azure and Softlayer
>
-- 
Ben Bromhead
CTO | Instaclustr <https://www.instaclustr.com/>
+1 650 284 9692
Managed Cassandra / Spark on AWS, Azure and Softlayer

Reply via email to