Cassandra Summit update for 2023-01-24

*Hello Cassandra Community!Quick take: - Register before 1/28 to get discount pricing. https://events.linuxfoundation.org/cassandra-summit/register/ - Use code CS23DS20 to get 20% off - Make sure and sign up for training the day on Mar

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

I am +1 on what Jeremiah said Also, thanks Caleb for opening the tickets and the heads up on rebase On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 at 17:32, Jeremiah D Jordan wrote: > "hold the same bar for merges into a feature branch as trunk" > > > I think this is the key point here. If a feature branch is being trea

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

So far in the in-progress rebase, the most annoying conflicts have been w/ my own trunk additions :p On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 4:32 PM Jeremiah D Jordan wrote: > "hold the same bar for merges into a feature branch as trunk" > > > I think this is the key point here. If a feature branch is being tr

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

> "hold the same bar for merges into a feature branch as trunk" I think this is the key point here. If a feature branch is being treated as if it was a release branch with respect to commits that go into it then there should be no need to “do extra review pre merge to trunk”. The feature branc

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

Cordial debate! <3 > - it's nevertheless the case that those contributors who didn't actively work > on Accord, have assumed that they will be invited to review now, when the > code is about to land in trunk. Not allowing that to happen would make them > feel like they weren't given the opportu

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

...and here they are: 1. CASSANDRA-18195 (Feature Flag for Accord Transactions) 1. CASSANDRA-18196 (Initial Merge of Accord Feature Branch to Trunk) 1. The fir

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

Thanks Josh Since you mentioned the CEP process, I should also mention one sentiment you omitted, but worth stating explicitly: 4. The CEP itself should not be renegotiated at this point. However, the reviewers should rather focus on validating that the implementation matches the CEP. (Or if not,

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

Zooming out a bit, I think Accord is the first large body of work we've done post introduction of the CEP system with multiple people collaborating on a feature branch like this. This discussion seems to have surfaced a few sentiments: 1. Some contributors seem to feel that work on a feature br

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

Just FYI, I'm going to be posting a Jira (which will have some dependencies as well) to track this merge, hopefully some time today... On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 12:26 PM Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > I actually see people all the time making a final check before merge as > part of the review. And I

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

I actually see people all the time making a final check before merge as part of the review. And I personally see it only as a benefit when it comes to serious things like Accord, as an example. Even as a help for the author who is overwhelmed with the big amount of work already done - someone to do

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

Perhaps the disconnect is that folk assume a rebase will be difficult and have many conflicts? We have introduced primarily new code with minimal integration points, so I decided to test this. I managed to rebase locally in around five minutes; mostly imports. This is less work than for a rebase of

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

Hi everyone, I am excited to see this work merged. I noticed the branch is 395 commits behind trunk or not rebased since September last year. I think if Mick or anyone else wants to make a final pass after rebase happens and CI runs - this work can only benefit of that. Squash, rebase and full CI r

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

When was the last time the feature branch was rebased? Assuming it's a while back and the delta is significant, surely it's normal process to first rebase, run tests, and then present the branch for review? To answer your question: The effect of the rebase is then either baked into the original co

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 1:11 AM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > But it's not merge-than-review, because they've already been > reviewed, before being merged to the feature branch, by committers > (actually PMC members)? > > There's no question that the feature branch already meets the minimum requiremen

Re: [DISCUSS] Formation of Apache Cassandra Publicity & Marketing Group

The market...@cassandra.apache.org list is created. To subscribe send an email to marketing-subscr...@cassandra.apache.org from the email address you want to subscribe from. If you are a committer you can alternately use Whimsy: https://whimsy.apache.org/committers/subscribe regards, Mick On F

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

No, that is not the normal process. What is it you think you would be reviewing? There are no diffs produced as part of rebasing, and the purpose of review is to ensure code meets out standards, not that the committer is competent at rebasing or squashing. Nor are you familiar with the code as i

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

> But it's not merge-than-review, because they've already been > reviewed, before being merged to the feature branch, by committers > (actually PMC members)? > > You want code that's been written by one PMC member and reviewed by 2 > other PMC members to be put up for review by some random 4th