On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> I'm not a fan of blocking a new rc because of bugs that are not
> regressions new in that release. I'd also like to get more testing on
> the 1.2 fixes since b2. But we can call it b3 instead of rc1 if you
> want.
I agree with everything
I'm not a fan of blocking a new rc because of bugs that are not
regressions new in that release. I'd also like to get more testing on
the 1.2 fixes since b2. But we can call it b3 instead of rc1 if you
want.
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Brandon Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:17
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> We've fixed pretty much all know issues since beta2 (remains 2 issues tagged
> 1.2.0 but none are really critical if they don't make it anyway) so so I
> propose the following artifacts for release as 1.2.0-rc1.
I think we should solve CA
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Edward Capriolo wrote:
> I do not understand why everyone wants to force this issue on removing
> thrift.
I'm -1 on removing thrift, and by my count, that would put us at -3
binding if it ever came to vote, so let's consider this proposition
closed and move on to
I agree with Edward here. We use Thrift too and we haven't really found a good
enough reason to move to CQL3.
-- Drew
On Dec 1, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Edward Capriolo wrote:
> I do not understand why everyone wants to force this issue on removing
> thrift. If cql, cql sparse tables and the new tra
