+1
On 07/20/2016 05:48 PM, Michael Shuler wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.8.
sha1: c3ded0551f538f7845602b27d53240cd8129265c
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.8-tentative
Artifacts:
https://repository.apache.org/content
+1
—
Robert Stupp
@snazy
> On 21 Jul 2016, at 07:48, Michael Shuler wrote:
>
> I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.8.
>
> sha1: c3ded0551f538f7845602b27d53240cd8129265c
> Git:
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.8-tentative
> Artifac
+1
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Michael Shuler wrote:
> I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.8.
>
> sha1: c3ded0551f538f7845602b27d53240cd8129265c
> Git:
>
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.8-tentative
> Artifacts:
>
> https://rep
+1
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko
wrote:
> +1
>
> --
> AY
>
> On 20 July 2016 at 22:48:09, Michael Shuler (mshu...@apache.org) wrote:
>
> I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.8.
>
> sha1: c3ded0551f538f7845602b27d53240cd8129265c
> Git:
>
> http://git-wip-us.apac
3.10 most likely.
--
AY
On 21 July 2016 at 01:28:13, Jake Luciani (jak...@gmail.com) wrote:
Will that be in 3.x or 4?
Will that be in 3.x or 4?
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko
wrote:
> I don’t think so, b/c
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12142 will allow us to
> develop them incrementally.
>
> --
> AY
>
> On 20 July 2016 at 22:03:37, Jake Luciani (jak...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
I don’t think so, b/c https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12142
will allow us to develop them incrementally.
--
AY
On 20 July 2016 at 22:03:37, Jake Luciani (jak...@gmail.com) wrote:
Also, anything related to native protocol v5
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=labels%20%
Keep #11349, revert the rest sounds reasonable.
--
AY
On 20 July 2016 at 22:27:05, sankalp kohli (kohlisank...@gmail.com) wrote:
+1 on only allowing critical bug fixes.
I agree with Sylvain that CASSANDRA-11349 is a border line critical bug. I
would vote for CASSANDRA-11349 as being critica
+1
--
AY
On 20 July 2016 at 22:48:09, Michael Shuler (mshu...@apache.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.8.
sha1: c3ded0551f538f7845602b27d53240cd8129265c
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.8-tentative
Artifa
+1
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Brandon Williams wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Michael Shuler
> wrote:
>
> > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.8.
> >
> > sha1: c3ded0551f538f7845602b27d53240cd8129265c
> > Git:
> >
> >
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/
+1
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Michael Shuler wrote:
> I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.8.
>
> sha1: c3ded0551f538f7845602b27d53240cd8129265c
> Git:
>
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.8-tentative
> Artifacts:
>
> https://rep
I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.8.
sha1: c3ded0551f538f7845602b27d53240cd8129265c
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.8-tentative
Artifacts:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1123/org/apache/cas
+1 on only allowing critical bug fixes.
I agree with Sylvain that CASSANDRA-11349 is a border line critical bug. I
would vote for CASSANDRA-11349 as being critical since over streaming is a
big issue for us as well. I am also fine taking it as an internal patch
since we already maintain an interna
Hi,
I'm the reporter for CASSANDRA-11349.
Just a bit of history:
This was a big pain point for us because the over-streaming was really
important.
Each week, repair increased data size by a few percents.
To give an example, one cluster with 12 nodes had a CF with around 250GB of
data per node and
Also +1 from me. Any reason not to draw a line in the sand for the next
stabilization release (3.9)?
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:11 PM, sankalp kohli
wrote:
> Hi,
> I am +1 for not releasing new version till we fix the unit tests. Yes I
> am interested in being added to the queue to make test
Also, anything related to native protocol v5
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=labels%20%3D%20protocolv5
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Jason Brown wrote:
> forgot to mention that 8457 changes the internode messaging protocol, so
> needs to fall on a major version boundary.
>
> If 84
Hi,
I am +1 for not releasing new version till we fix the unit tests. Yes I
am interested in being added to the queue to make testing better. I have
fixed a bunch of flaky tests in our internal build and will open source
them soon.
Can the PMC give some guidance on making releases block on uni
Definitively agrees that CASSANDRA-10433 and CASSANDRA-12030 aren't
critical. In fact, they are both marked as "improvements" and "minor". I'm
to blame for their commit, so mea culpa. But to my defense, I've long
advocated for being stricter on sticking to critical-only fixes on old
releases and ha
I've recently started a hard push for getting test tickets prioritized and
assigned to various contributors, and I'm pushing for us to have a
consistent green test board for 3.9. While I'm not on the PMC so can't
binding -1 a release vote, I'd non-binding -1 3.9 if we don't have stable
tests.
Afte
forgot to mention that 8457 changes the internode messaging protocol, so
needs to fall on a major version boundary.
If 8457 does go forward, and CASSANDRA-8911 (mutation-based repair) does
*not* happen, we'll need something like CASSANDRA-12229 (to support
streaming under the non-blocking/netty mo
+1 from me (and I don’t see any resistance to it either).
--
AY
On 18 July 2016 at 18:36:42, Jonathan Ellis (jbel...@gmail.com) wrote:
Except there really wasn't.
Patch submitter: "I want this in 2.1."
Reviewer: "Okay."
That's not exactly the bar we're looking for. To consider a perform
I’d strike CASSANDRA-10383 off the list - there is no way it’s a blocker for
anything.
As for 9424, unless I die unexpectedly *and* nobody else picks up the work, it
should be fine for Nov.
Don’t see anything missing from the list.
--
AY
On 20 July 2016 at 15:59:34, Jason Brown (jasedbr...@g
There’s also:
CASSANDRA-10520 Compressed writer and reader should support non-compressed data
(changes sstable format)
CASSANDRA-10383 Disable auto snapshot on selected tables (changes schema)
—
Robert Stupp
@snazy
> On 21 Jul 2016, at 00:59, Jason Brown wrote:
>
> CASSANDRA-8457 - nio Messag
CASSANDRA-8457 - nio MessagingService. Patch is up and awaiting review
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> The plan of record has been to ship 4.0 in November, 12 months after 3.0.
> But, there are a number of features that are going to cause backwards
> incompatibility and
The plan of record has been to ship 4.0 in November, 12 months after 3.0.
But, there are a number of features that are going to cause backwards
incompatibility and if they miss 4.0 will need to wait for 5.0. Are any of
these worth delaying 4.0 for?
(Currently the plan is to have all of these read
25 matches
Mail list logo
