Yes please!
> On May 15, 2024, at 2:23 PM, Bret McGuire wrote:
>
>Very much agreed Paulo; I was musing on the idea of adding Docker support
> to ccm recently as well. We'd want to preserve the current ability to work
> with releases (and Github branches) but I very much like the idea of a
Very much agreed Paulo; I was musing on the idea of adding Docker
support to ccm recently as well. We'd want to preserve the current ability
to work with releases (and Github branches) but I very much like the idea
of adding Docker support as a new feature.
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 3:56 PM Paul
As much as I'd like to remove the dependency on ccm I think we'll stick
with it for a bit, so +1 on moving under the project umbrella.
In the long term it would be nice to modernize integration test suites to
use containers instead of processes for more flexibility and fewer
dependencies for local
Strong supporter for bringing ccm into the project as well. ccm is necessary
test infrastructure for multiple subprojects, and Cassandra committers should
be able to make the changes to ccm that are necessary for their patches.
There's also the security angle: we should work to consolidate our d
Speaking only for myself I _love_ this idea. The various drivers use
ccm extensively in their integration test suites so having this tool
in-house and actively looked after would be very beneficial for our work.
- Bret -
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 9:23 AM Josh McKenzie wrote:
> Right now cc
You can remove the shadowed values at compaction time, but you can’t ever fully
propagate the range update to point updates, so you’d be propagating all of the
range-update structures throughout everything forever. It’s JUST like a range
tombstone - you don’t know what it’s shadowing (and can’t,
Thanks for the reply Benjamin, makes sense to me. We can always add it later
if it makes sense later, don’t need now in UPDATE
> On May 15, 2024, at 7:44 AM, Jon Haddad wrote:
>
> I was trying to have a discussion about a technical possibility, not a cost
> benefit analysis. More of a "how c
I was trying to have a discussion about a technical possibility, not a cost
benefit analysis. More of a "how could we technically reach mars?"
discussion than a "how we get congress to authorize a budget to reach mars?"
Happy to talk about this privately with anyone interested as I enjoy a
techni
Right now ccm isn't formally a subproject of Cassandra or under governance of
the ASF. Given it's an integral components of our CI as well as for local
testing for many devs, and we now have more experience w/our muscle on IP
clearance and ingesting / absorbing subprojects where we can't track d
> Is there a technical limitation that would prevent a range write that
> functions the same way as a range tombstone, other than probably needing a
> version bump of the storage format?
The technical limitation would be cost/benefit due to how this intersects w/our
architecture I think.
Range
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:09 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> Yes Dinesh. João Reis managed to get hold of both Chris and Martin.
>>> Responses have been slow, but everyone is on board. This is not to be
>>> considered a hostile fork, despite in all likelihood not being able to do a
>>> full IP do
>
> Ok, so we're got confidence now on how to approach this, confirmation from
>> the project's maintainers supporting it, and interest from a handful of
>> people interested in maintaining and contributing to the project.
>>
>
> Did you talk to the current maintainers off list or did I miss some t
12 matches
Mail list logo
