Re: CQL status

On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 05:21 +0100, Tristan Tarrant wrote: > what we need now is a jdbc driver... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1710 > On Jan 12, 2011 3:00 AM, "Courtney Robinson" wrote: > > ?On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Courtney Robinson > > wrote: > >> ?Having been pointe

Re: Time for 1.0

On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 19:35 -0600, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > Way back in Nov 09, we did a users survey and asked what features > people wanted to see. Here was my summary of the responses: > http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-user@incubator.apache.org/msg01446.html > > Looking at that, we've don

Re: Time for 1.0

> User documentation: done (http://www.riptano.com/docs) Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere but, is this a permanent home? Is there to be mirror on the official site? Surely if the project itself doesn't have user documentation then the milestone has not been reached by the project. I u

Re: CQL status

what we need now is a jdbc driver... On Jan 12, 2011 3:00 AM, "Courtney Robinson" wrote: > ?On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Courtney Robinson > wrote: >> ?Having been pointed to >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1704 >> I wanted to know what the state of that was. >> Eric Evans

Re: Time for 1.0

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > The list-- Through a copy/paste error I left out the first one: Increment/decrement: done :) -- Jonathan Ellis Project Chair, Apache Cassandra co-founder of Riptano, the source for professional Cassandra support http://riptano.com

Re: Time for 1.0

+1 days ago I was wondering about the gap between 0.7 and a future 1.0, the answer is just a few more enhancements like you said. :) Excellent news :) // Germán Kondolf http://twitter.com/germanklf http://code.google.com/p/seide/ // @i4 On 11/01/2011, at 22:35, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > Way bac

Re: CQL status

?On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Courtney Robinson wrote: ?Having been pointed to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1704 I wanted to know what the state of that was. Eric Evans said changes had been pushed to SVN, can I check out the latest head and play with it? Yes. Checki

Re: Time for 1.0

?+1 I see no reason why not. Since I've been using Cassandra (just over a year), its been pretty stable*. With all the improvements that have been made i say that more than warrants a 1.0 release. -Original Message- From: Paul Brown Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:47 AM To: dev@c

Re: Time for 1.0

+1.0 I'm not a committer, but I think a 1.0 is warranted, especially given the number of folks who have the application in production. (In fact, 0.7 would have made a reasonable 1.0.) -- Paul On Jan 11, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > Way back in Nov 09, we did a users survey and

Re: CQL status

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Courtney Robinson wrote: > ?Having been pointed to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1704 > I wanted to know what the state of that was. > Eric Evans said changes had been pushed to SVN, can I check out the latest > head and play with it? Yes. > Loo

Time for 1.0

Way back in Nov 09, we did a users survey and asked what features people wanted to see. Here was my summary of the responses: http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-user@incubator.apache.org/msg01446.html Looking at that, we've done essentially all of them. I think we can make a strong case that

CQL status

?Having been pointed to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1704 I wanted to know what the state of that was. Eric Evans said changes had been pushed to SVN, can I check out the latest head and play with it? Looking at the comments, if its not too late here's my 2cents. For what it'

Re: API pages on the wiki

> ^ I like that idea.  Make it a landing page that points to the other > versions (trunk, 07, 06, etc.). RIght. The main downside I can think of is that you don't get the annotated nature of the current API page where you can read what is true now while simultaneously getting a sense of when new f

Re: API pages on the wiki

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:49, Peter Schuller wrote: > I have noticed API06 and API07 being created. API being de-synched > with API07 now. > > Should we just make API not contain anything and all, and simply link > to the appropriate page for each version? ^ I like that idea. Make it a landing

API pages on the wiki

I have noticed API06 and API07 being created. API being de-synched with API07 now. What is the intentional method of maintaining these? Should API reflect trunk, or the "latest release"? Should we just make API not contain anything and all, and simply link to the appropriate page for each version

Hudson build is back to normal : Cassandra #665

See

Hudson build is back to normal : Cassandra-0.7 #151

See

Build failed in Hudson: Cassandra-0.7 #150

See Changes: [jbellis] allow specifying specific SSTables to compact from JMX patch by slebresne; reviewed by jbellis for CASSANDRA-1963 -- [...truncated 723 lines...] AUinterface/thr

Build failed in Hudson: Cassandra #664

See Changes: [jbellis] Keep partitioned counter contexts sorted patch by slebresne; reviewed by Kelvin Kakugawa for CASSANDRA-1937 [jbellis] merge from 0.7 -- [...truncated 773 lines...] A

Build failed in Hudson: Cassandra-0.7 #149

See Changes: [jbellis] fix CFMetaData.applyto onlycompareobjectsof the same class patch by Stu Hood; reviewed by slebresne for CASSANDRA-1962 [jbellis] optimize supercolumn deserialization patch by Cliff Moon and jbellis; reviewed