===
testall: 1 failure
org.apache.cassandra.db.commitlog
.CommitLogSegmentManagerTest
.testCompressedCommitLogBackpressure
CASSANDRA-12283. This issue is under investigation and it looks
like it is understood at this time. It still n
On 17 August 2016 at 03:47, Benedict Elliott Smith
wrote:
> What this project really needs, and the board is chomping at the bit about,
> is diversity. The fact is, right now DataStax does 95% of the substantive
> development on the project, and so they make all the decisions. As such,
> their
I think a separate mailing list for just ticket creation would be nice as well.
I think that’s what many of us filter down the commits@ list to. That doesn’t
have to happen in place of the proposed change but would make it easier for
people to follow new issue creation. From there I go to and
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
[ ... ]
> I propose that we take advantage of the dev list to perform that
> separation. Major new features and architectural improvements should be
> discussed first here, then when consensus on design is achieved, moved to
> Jira for impl
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith
wrote:
> This is a great example of email's inadequacies, as this innocuous (to me)
> little textual
> act resulted instead in *different* quagmire, while the first potential
> quagmire is still in
> play!
>
> Email is a minefield, and text
Like many difficult problems, it is easier to point them out than to
suggest improvements. Anyway, I wasn't proposing we change the mechanisms
of communication, just excusing my simplification of (my view of) the
problem to avoid ending up in a quagmire on that topic. This is a great
example of e
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith
wrote:
> I think all complex, nuanced and especially emotive topics are challenging
> to discuss over textual media, due to things like the attention span of
> your readers, the difficulties in structuring your text, and especially the
> hoop
I think all complex, nuanced and especially emotive topics are challenging
to discuss over textual media, due to things like the attention span of
your readers, the difficulties in structuring your text, and especially the
hoops that have to be jumped through to minimise the potential for
misinterp
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith
wrote:
> This topic is complex, and fully exploring all of the detail would be onerous
> over email.
Out of curiosity, why; What makes this topic so difficult to discuss over email?
> DataStax, in my opinion, consciously tries to be a good
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks Jeremiah. This is moving us in the right direction.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:31 AM, Jeremiah D Jordan <
jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Back to the topic at hand. First, let us establish that all of this stuff
> will be happening “on the mailing lists”, all JIRA upd
This was very much not my intention to imply. I thought I had crafted the
email carefully to not imply that at all. This topic is complex, and fully
exploring all of the detail would be onerous over email. DataStax, in my
opinion, consciously tries to be a good citizen. However there are
emerge
I don't know about everyone else, but a big deterrent in contributing code
to Cassandra for me (over the last 4 years or so) is the massive amount of
ramp up that needs to happen in order to get started working on something
meaningful. This comes in a variety of forms - understanding how test
fail
While i agree with this generally, it's misleading.
It comes across like Datastax is dictating and excluding others from
participating, or perhaps discouraging others or whatever.
The truth is, whenever someone comes along who is independent, and
interested in developing Apache Cassandra, the
This is a much more useful focusing of the discussion, in my opinion. It
seemed to me that city hall was focusing on a very narrow definition of
project health.
I would be the first to say the project need to improve here, but doing so
will be challenging; I'm not sure anyone really knows how to
+1 I would like this.
On 2016-08-16 13:31, Jeremiah D Jordan wrote:
Back to the topic at hand. First, let us establish that all of this
stuff will be happening “on the mailing lists”, all JIRA updates are
sent to commits@ with the reply-to set to dev@, so “JIRA” is still “on
the list".
Now we
Back to the topic at hand. First, let us establish that all of this stuff will
be happening “on the mailing lists”, all JIRA updates are sent to commits@ with
the reply-to set to dev@, so “JIRA” is still “on the list".
Now we just need to decide how we would like to best make use of these lists
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Stevens [mailto:migh...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 06:10
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development
>
> I agree with Benedict that we really shouldn't be getting into a
> legalese
On 08/16/2016 10:52 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> No objections, the plan sounds good to me.
>
> In addition to that, prep for pushing 3.0.9 out with 3.9.
Thanks. Yes, 3.0.9 is also up for release, without any branch song and
dance :)
--
Michael
No objections, the plan sounds good to me.
In addition to that, prep for pushing 3.0.9 out with 3.9.
--
AY
On 16 August 2016 at 16:51:24, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
Yesterday, it was suggested on #cassandra-dev that when 3.9 is ready for
release, we release 3.8 with the s
Yesterday, it was suggested on #cassandra-dev that when 3.9 is ready for
release, we release 3.8 with the same code base. My plan is to force
push the contents of cassandra-3.9 branch to the cassandra-3.8 branch,
updating the version appropriately, so we can build/test from the 3.8
branch, as usual
I agree with Benedict that we really shouldn't be getting into a legalese
debate on this subject, however "it didn't happen" has been brought up as a
hammer in this conversation multiple times, and I think it's important that
we put it to rest. It's pretty clear cut that projects are free to
disre
+1 for one email.
> On Aug 16, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Josh McKenzie wrote:
>
> Assuming we're single digit failures combined between the two, I think a
> single test failure email would be manageable.
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Joel Knighton
> wrote:
>
>>
Assuming we're single digit failures combined between the two, I think a
single test failure email would be manageable.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Joel Knighton
wrote:
> ===
> testall: 1 failure
> org.apache.cassandra.io.compress
> .Compr
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:23 AM Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> A long time ago, I was a proponent of keeping most development discussions
> on Jira, where tickets can be self contained and the threadless nature
> helps keep discussions from getting sidetracked.
>
> But Cassandra was a lot smaller then,
Unfortunately when rulebooks are consulted to shape this kind of
discussion, their ambiguity begins to show. What does it mean for
something "to happen" on a mailing list? It must be a loose
interpretation, because clearly many things do not "happen" on the mailing
list, such as all of the code d
While all of these things are true, it's irrelevant. The ASF has a clear
policy on this (the "it didn't happen" policy). Discussions and decisions
about the project must be done on the mailing lists. You may disagree with
the policy (as many have before you) and feel free to take it up with the
26 matches
Mail list logo
