There are two main benefits to agreeing on this:
1. Providing clarity for contributors on release phases – i.e., what types of
changes are expected to land or be deferred during a particular point in that
cycle.
2. Providing semantic clarity to users of Cassandra in terms of what they can
expe
+1 too (non binding)
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:33 PM Scott Andreas wrote:
>
> +1nb for me for the 3.x releases.
>
> The user-facing issues resolved in 2.2 are slimmer and relatively minor (just
> 15225, 15050, 15045, 15041), but if it makes sense to release all three
> together, sounds good to
+1nb for me for the 3.x releases.
The user-facing issues resolved in 2.2 are slimmer and relatively minor (just
15225, 15050, 15045, 15041), but if it makes sense to release all three
together, sounds good to me.
– Scott
On 10/4/19, 11:00 AM, "Jon Haddad" wrote:
It's been a while since
It's been a while since we did a release and I think there's enough in here
to put one out.
2.2.15 changes:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20CASSANDRA%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.2.15%20and%20status%20%3D%20Resolved%20
3.0.19 changes:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issu
Dear Apache Cassandra committers,
In a little over 2 weeks time, ApacheCon Europe is taking place in
Berlin. Join us from October 22 to 24 for an exciting program and lovely
get-together of the Apache Community.
We are also planning a hackathon. If your project is interested in
participatin
