It's just a warning, so hopefully isn't an issue. It's possible that adding
includeantruntime="false"
to the tasks may help this, altho the combination of junit and
forking might gum up the works.
I'd expect most people see this.
On 06/04/2016 09:46 PM, Mahdi Mohammadi wrote:
Output of `an
Output of `ant test` for each test suit contains this warning:
*test:*
*[mkdir] Created dir: /Users/mahdi/box/cassandra/build/test/cassandra*
*[mkdir] Created dir: /Users/mahdi/box/cassandra/build/test/output*
*[junit] WARNING: multiple versions of ant detected in path for junit *
*
He already showed himself a good man by apologizing. Please, no more
mudslinging. We're on the same team here.
On Jun 4, 2016 2:22 PM, "Michael Kjellman"
wrote:
> No need to argue your point to me anymore. I've already tuned you out.
>
> These are good people who I consider my friends and insulti
No need to argue your point to me anymore. I've already tuned you out.
These are good people who I consider my friends and insulting people just shows
your arguments really have no merit.
Good luck with your new driver contribution! I look forward to reviewing the
code.
Sent from my iPhone
First off, full disclosure: contributor, committer, PMC member, and
finally, Datastax employee, in about that order chronologically.
All of the drivers, as far as I know, are Apache licensed, just as is
Cassandra itself. There is no 'control', there is only momentum, since
anyone can fork the cod
The java-driver is fully Apache licensed. In the implausible scenario something
like that happens, we can always simply fork it and start maintaining it
ourselves.
As long as java-driver community are good community citizens - as they are, and
have been since day one - we are happy to have that
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:07 PM, James Carman
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:05 PM Nate McCall wrote:
>
> > Whereas the health of my company and title rely heavily on a thriving
open
> > source community, yet Aleksey and I are in agreement. Let's keep it up
at
> > the level of the project an
I apologized else-thread about that one. It was a low blow. Anyway, to
answer your question. The Cassandra community wins! How do we know if they
won't make you pay for the driver in the future (after all your code is
written against it)? It has happened before. Also, the rest of the
community
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:05 PM Nate McCall wrote:
> Whereas the health of my company and title rely heavily on a thriving open
> source community, yet Aleksey and I are in agreement. Let's keep it up at
> the level of the project and technical merits, please.
>
>
Okay, that might have been a bit
An eloquent and powerful response, but please, reply to my points instead of
resorting to ad hominem arguments.
In practical terms, who would benefit from such a merge, and who is suffering
from the current state of affairs?
--
AY
On 4 June 2016 at 18:03:05, James Carman (ja...@carmanconsulti
Whereas the health of my company and title rely heavily on a thriving open
source community, yet Aleksey and I are in agreement. Let's keep it up at
the level of the project and technical merits, please.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:02 PM, James Carman
wrote:
> "Sr. Software Engineer at DataStax",
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:02 PM Nate McCall wrote:
> For me, most of the complexity would have been dealing with the governing
> body :)
>
> Seriously though, being independant allowed me to experiment with things
> like going directly to the internal Storage API from the client which would
> have
"Sr. Software Engineer at DataStax", imagine that.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:01 PM Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> As a member of that governing body (Cassandra PMC), I would much prefer
> not to deal with the drivers as well.
>
> And I’m just as certain that java-driver - and other driver communities
For me, most of the complexity would have been dealing with the governing
body :)
Seriously though, being independant allowed me to experiment with things
like going directly to the internal Storage API from the client which would
have definitely been -1'ed by some committers (rightly so as it wou
As a member of that governing body (Cassandra PMC), I would much prefer not to
deal with the drivers as well.
And I’m just as certain that java-driver - and other driver communities - would
much rather prefer to keep their process and organisation instead of being
forced to conform to ours.
I’
How does it add more complexity by having one governing body (the PMC)?
What I am suggesting is that the driver project be somewhat of a subproject
or a "module". It can still have its own life cycle, just like it does now.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:44 PM Nate McCall wrote:
> It doesnt. But then
It doesnt. But then we add complexity in communicating and managing
versions, releases, etc. to the project. Again, from my experience with
hector, I just didnt want the hassle of owning that within the project
confines.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 11:30 AM, James Carman
wrote:
> Who said the driver
Who said the driver has to be released with the database?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:29 PM Nate McCall wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:05 AM, James Carman
> wrote:
>
> > So why not just donate the Java driver and keep that in house? Cassandra
> is
> > a Java project. Makes sense to me.
> >
>
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:05 AM, James Carman
wrote:
> So why not just donate the Java driver and keep that in house? Cassandra is
> a Java project. Makes sense to me.
>
>
I won't deny there is an argument to be made here, but as a former client
maintainer (Hector), current ASF committer (Usergri
So why not just donate the Java driver and keep that in house? Cassandra is
a Java project. Makes sense to me.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:58 AM Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Chris Mattmann
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Jonathan. I’m starting to get a clearer idea of what’s
> >
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Chris Mattmann wrote:
> Thanks Jonathan. I’m starting to get a clearer idea of what’s
> going on here. Do you think it was a walled garden in terms of
> making reviews for incoming driver patches when you did have
> them in the tree?
Not exactly sure what you mea
Thanks Jonathan. I’m starting to get a clearer idea of what’s
going on here. Do you think it was a walled garden in terms of
making reviews for incoming driver patches when you did have
them in the tree? What you are talking about in the first paragraph
is precisely the reason that your community
FWIW, in very very ancient history we actually had the drivers in tree. It
sucked, because the people who wanted to contribute to the drivers were for
the most part not Committers, and the committers for the most part weren't
interested in reviewing drivers patches, and you have different,
non-ove
23 matches
Mail list logo
