On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> I agree that it is worth adding a support for counter as supercolumns
> in 1546 and that's fairly trivial, so I will add that as soon as possible
> (but please understand that I'm working on this for a good part during
> my free time).
>
>
I agree that it is worth adding a support for counter as supercolumns
in 1546 and that's fairly trivial, so I will add that as soon as possible
(but please understand that I'm working on this for a good part during
my free time).
As for supercolumns of counters, there is what Jonathan proposes, bu
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Ryan King wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Ryan King wrote:
>>> Sorry, been catching up on this.
>>>
>>> From Twitter's perspective, 1546 is probably insufficient because it
>>> doesn't allow one
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Ryan King wrote:
>> Sorry, been catching up on this.
>>
>> From Twitter's perspective, 1546 is probably insufficient because it
>> doesn't allow one to do time-series data without supercolumns (which
>> mig
+1
-Chris
On Sep 28, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
It feels like 0.7.0-beta1 is becoming too distant a spec in
the rear-view, and the delta[1] is becoming quite large. I
propose we vote to release a new beta
+1
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
>>> It feels like 0.7.0-beta1 is becoming too distant a spec in
>>> the rear-view, and the delta[1] is becoming quite large. I
>>> propose we vote to release a new beta.
>
>> The previous vote was waved off, so here is a new one.
>
> 3rd tim
+1
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
> >> It feels like 0.7.0-beta1 is becoming too distant a spec in
> >> the rear-view, and the delta[1] is becoming quite large. I
> >> propose we vote to release a new beta.
>
> > The previous vote was waved off, so here is a new one.
>
> 3r
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Ryan King wrote:
> Sorry, been catching up on this.
>
> From Twitter's perspective, 1546 is probably insufficient because it
> doesn't allow one to do time-series data without supercolumns (which
> might work ok, but require a good deal of work). Additionally, one
Sorry, been catching up on this.
>From Twitter's perspective, 1546 is probably insufficient because it
doesn't allow one to do time-series data without supercolumns (which
might work ok, but require a good deal of work). Additionally, one of
our deployed systems already does supercolumns of counte
+1
Tested upgrades from 0.6.5 and 0.7-beta1.
-Original Message-
From: "Eric Evans"
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 12:37pm
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] 0.7.0 beta2 (attempt #3)
>> It feels like 0.7.0-beta1 is becoming too distant a spec in
>> the rear-view, and the delt
+1 (non-binding)
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:37, Eric Evans wrote:
>>> It feels like 0.7.0-beta1 is becoming too distant a spec in
>>> the rear-view, and the delta[1] is becoming quite large. I
>>> propose we vote to release a new beta.
>
>> The pre
>> It feels like 0.7.0-beta1 is becoming too distant a spec in
>> the rear-view, and the delta[1] is becoming quite large. I
>> propose we vote to release a new beta.
> The previous vote was waved off, so here is a new one.
3rd times the charm? We shall see.
SVN: https://svn.apache.org/repos/a
Is there any feedback from Twitter and Digg and perhaps SimpleGeo people about
CASSANDRA-1546? Would that work so that you wouldn't have to maintain a fork?
On Sep 27, 2010, at 5:25 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> In CASSANDRA-1546, I propose an alternative to #1072. At it's core,
> it rewrites #
13 matches
Mail list logo
