Thanks for all the detail. I do appreciate your time in replying. I'm
not fond of the idea of trying to cherry-pick trunk and delay further..
This has just been an odd and unorthodox moment in time to adopt release
management, and I simply wish to do what's best for users. It's late,
and I need to
Please don’t make me argue over 3.8/3.9 again. We are way, way over our
original schedule at this point.
Releasing 3.9 now breaks no promises. You still get more than a month of purely
bug fixes in the release.
And if we only do 3.8 off the current cassandra-3.9 branch, then trunk becomes
the
Jonathan's is a pretty compelling perspective.
--
Michael
On 09/23/2016 07:04 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> Both are effectively 3.9 on steroids. One month of features and
> improvements with 2 months of bug fixes on top.
>
> If anything, this overdelivers.
>
> -- AY
>
> On 23 September 2016
Both are effectively 3.9 on steroids. One month of features and improvements
with 2 months of bug fixes on top.
If anything, this overdelivers.
--
AY
On 23 September 2016 at 17:02:05, Jonathan Haddad (j...@jonhaddad.com) wrote:
(non-binding) -1 on releasing 2 versions with the same version nu
(non-binding) -1 on releasing 2 versions with the same version number.
Everything that's been communicated to the world has been that there would
be a feature release, then a bug fix release a month later. This breaks
that promise.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 4:23 PM Michael Shuler
wrote:
> Thanks!
+1
On 2016-09-23 16:04 (-0700), Michael Shuler wrote:
> I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.8.
>
> sha1: e9fe96f404b6a936ac5dbceb8f3934fe0d098a97
> Git:
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.2.8-tentative
> Artifacts:
> https://reposi
+1
On Friday, September 23, 2016, Brandon Williams wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Michael Shuler > wrote:
>
> > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.8.
> >
> > sha1: e9fe96f404b6a936ac5dbceb8f3934fe0d098a97
> > Git:
> > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=
+1
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Michael Shuler wrote:
> I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.8.
>
> sha1: e9fe96f404b6a936ac5dbceb8f3934fe0d098a97
> Git:
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=
> shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.2.8-tentative
> Artifacts:
> https://
+1
--
AY
On 23 September 2016 at 16:04:58, Michael Shuler (mshu...@apache.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.8.
sha1: e9fe96f404b6a936ac5dbceb8f3934fe0d098a97
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.2.8-tentative
Thanks! I'll do these release builds and start votes, first thing Monday
morning, unless I find some time on Sunday.
--
Michael
On 09/23/2016 05:15 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> Branch 3.8 off 3.9 with a commit that only changes the version in all
> appropriate places.
>
> Two separate votes
There were no immediate objections and I didn't spot any in-progress
tickets for 2.2.8, so go vote!
--
Michael
I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.8.
sha1: e9fe96f404b6a936ac5dbceb8f3934fe0d098a97
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.2.8-tentative
Artifacts:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1125/org/apache
Branch 3.8 off 3.9 with a commit that only changes the version in all
appropriate places.
Two separate votes works.
--
AY
On 23 September 2016 at 12:36:54, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
The cassandra-3.9 branch HEAD, commit bb371ea, looks good to release
(which will also be
The cassandra-2.2 branch looks stable, has a lot of bug fixes, and Tyler
had someone ask about a 2.2.8 release. Any objections to rolling this up
for a vote? http://cassci.datastax.com/view/cassandra-2.2/
--
Kind regards,
Michael
The cassandra-3.9 branch HEAD, commit bb371ea, looks good to release
(which will also be released as 3.8, changing just the version number).
I'm re-running a couple jobs right now, but overall, I think we hit the
goal of a clean board: http://cassci.datastax.com/view/cassandra-3.9/
If there are n
I think we should continue to use Dtest. Besides the improvement which
Edward talked about, we should see how we can have an option in ccm to also
support multiple machines if available.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Edward Capriolo
wrote:
> I love DTest I think it is a great thing in the too
I love DTest I think it is a great thing in the tool belt. One thing that I
want to point out, nosettests and dtests are black-box type testing. You
can not step or trace these things very easily.
My dream would be if cassandra was re-entrant and it was possible to run a
3 node cluster in one JVM
17 matches
Mail list logo
