> Projects MUST direct outsiders towards official releases rather than raw source repositories, nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar packages.Admittedly, “direct” here is ambiguous, but I think the sentiment that users should only be invited to use voted releases is r
> Projects *SHOULD make available developer resources to support
> individuals actively participating in development* or following the dev
> list and thus aware of the conditions placed on unreleased materials.
>
> For example, a user downloading a snapshot release with the unified
> compaction str
Sorry, for changing the subject slightly. My understanding from the thread
so far (correct me if I am wrong) is that there is at least an agreement on
merging Accord and TCM in 5.1.
I would like to move tickets to their correct target versions and update
the dashboard tomorrow so that we have a cle
+1
Kind Regards,
Brandon
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 4:47 PM Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>
> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 5.0-alpha2 for release.
>
> DISCLAIMER, this alpha release does not contain the features:
> Transactional Cluster Metadata (CEP-21) and Accord Transactions
> (CEP-15). These
+1 (nb)
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 at 03:26, guo Maxwell wrote:
>
> +1
>
> German Eichberger via dev 于2023年11月1日周三 04:58写道：
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Heck, yeah, we already tested the branch (build ourselves) and it works
>> great so far.
>>
>> From: Mick Semb Wever
>> Sent: Tues
>
> My reading of ASF policy is that directing users to CEP preview releases
> that are not formally voted upon is not acceptable. The policy you quote
> indicates they should be intended only for active participants on dev@,
> whereas our explicit intention is to enable them to be advertised to us
My view is that we wait and see what the CI looks like at that time.My reading of ASF policy is that directing users to CEP preview releases that are not formally voted upon is not acceptable. The policy you quote indicates they should be intended only for active participants on dev@, whereas our e
> I’m not sure we need any additional mechanisms beyond DISCUSS threads, polls
> and lazy consensus?
> ...
> This likely means at least another DISCUSS thread and lazy consensus if you
> want to knowingly go against it, or want to modify or clarify what’s meant.
> ...
> It can be chucked out or
