+1
> On 24 May 2022, at 09:38, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>
> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 4.1-alpha1 for release.
>
> sha1: 6f05be447073925a7f3620ddbbd572aa9fcd10ed
> Git:
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/4.1-alpha1-tentative
> Maven Artifacts:
+1
> On 15 Feb 2022, at 07:49, Marcus Eriksson wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 11:03:01PM +0100, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 4.0.3 for release.
>>
>>
>> sha1: a87055d56a33a9b17606f14535f48eb461965b82
>>
>> Git:
>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/
Agreed as well.
> On 4 Dec 2021, at 23:28, bened...@apache.org wrote:
>
> I think you were correct to start a DISCUSS thread, Bowen. You should not
> start a vote until you have first established if there is consensus.
>
> Also, I agree with the proposal.
>
> From: Bowen Song
> Date: Saturday
+1 on all points
> On 14 Oct 2021, at 17:31, bened...@apache.org wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as
> discussion has been circular for some time.
>
> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> 2. Do you support the transaction s
Lacking the most basic support for multi-partition transactions is a serious
handicap. The CEP offers a concrete solution.
It’s possible to solve multi-partition transactions in a myriad of other ways,
I’m sure, but CEP-15 is what’s on offer for Cassandra at the moment, and I’m
not seeing any a
+1
> On 23 Jul 2021, at 14:03, Joshua McKenzie wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 8:07 AM Dinesh Joshi
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 23, 2021, at 4:56 AM, Paulo Motta
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
Em sex., 23 de jul. de 2021 às 08:37, Andrés de la Peña <
a.penya.gar...@g
I would say just go with it. JMX isn’t quite deprecated yet, and if we ever
even end up doing that, it’s not going to be any time soon.
> On 16 Jul 2021, at 13:32, Stefan Miklosovic
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Benjamin for the understanding, but in the end, let's put aside
> the frustration here, I th
We could eventually make a virtual table only mode to resolve this - not serve
any data until a node is ready to do so - if necessary.
> On 15 Jul 2021, at 17:43, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
>
> There's a tactical issue, too, that virtual tables require native transport
> to be up before it's usable, so
+1
> On 14 Jul 2021, at 15:37, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 5:14 PM Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>
>> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 4.0.0 for release.
>>
>> sha1: 924bf92fab1820942137138c779004acaf834187
>> Git:
>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra
+1
> On 28 Jun 2021, at 14:05, Gary Dusbabek wrote:
>
> +1; yay!
>
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 11:02 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>
>> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 4.0-rc2 for release.
>>
>> sha1: 4c98576533e1d7663baf447e8877788096489165
>> Git:
>>
>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf
+1
> On 24 Jun 2021, at 10:22, Sam Tunnicliffe wrote:
>
> +1
>
>> On 23 Jun 2021, at 22:31, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
>>
>> This would be my preference.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:22 PM Ben Bromhead wrote:
>>
>>> I'm also comfortable with a strict approach where we just list actual
>>> Ap
Correction: 3.11.x users should upgrade to 3.11.10. 3.11.24 doesn’t exist. Yet.
> On 1 Feb 2021, at 18:22, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
>
> CVE-2020-17516: Apache Cassandra doesn't enforce encryption setting on
> inbound internode connections
>
> Severity:
> Important
CVE-2020-17516: Apache Cassandra doesn't enforce encryption setting on inbound
internode connections
Severity:
Important
Vendor:
The Apache Software Foundation
Versions Affected:
Cassandra 2.1.0 to 2.1.22
Cassandra 2.2.0 to 2.2.19
Cassandra 3.0.0 to 3.0.23
Cassandra 3.11.0 to 3.11.9
Descriptio
+1
> On 29 Jan 2021, at 14:30, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:
>
> +1(nb)
>
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 at 8:04, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who has
>>> tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are considered
>>> bind
I would like to propose CASSANDRA-15066 [1] - an important set of bug fixes
and stability improvements to internode messaging code that Benedict, I,
and others have been working on for the past couple of months.
First, some context. This work started off as a review of CASSANDRA-14503
(Internode
There are some nice benefits to GH PRs, one of them is that we could eventually
set up CircleCI hooks that would explicitly prevent commits that don’t pass the
tests.
But handling multiple branches would indeed be annoying. Would have to either
submit 1 PR per branch - which is both tedious and
ep 11, 2018 at 10:27 AM Aleksey Yeschenko
> wrote:
>
>> If this is about inclusion in 4.0, then I support it.
>>
>> Technically this is *mostly* just a move+donation of some code from
>> java-driver to Cassandra. Given how important this seemingly i
If this is about inclusion in 4.0, then I support it.
Technically this is *mostly* just a move+donation of some code from java-driver
to Cassandra. Given how important this seemingly is to the board and PMC for us
to not have the dependency on the driver, the sooner it’s gone, the better.
I’d b
+1
—
AY
On 25 July 2018 at 08:47:40, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.17.
sha1: d52c7b8c595cc0d06fc3607bf16e3f595f016bb6
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.17-tentative
+1
—
AY
On 25 July 2018 at 08:49:15, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.13.
sha1: 3482370df5672c9337a16a8a52baba53b70a4fe8
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.2.13-tentative
+1
—
AY
On 25 July 2018 at 20:14:08, Jonathan Haddad (j...@jonhaddad.com) wrote:
+1
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:35 AM Jeff Jirsa wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:16 AM, Michael Shuler
> wrote:
>
> > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.11.3.
> >
> > s
+1
—
AY
On 28 July 2017 at 11:47:29, Stefan Podkowinski (s...@apache.org) wrote:
Can we forward notifications for the new cassandra-dtest repo there as well?
On 24.03.2017 18:59, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
> With 6 binding +1s, 6 non-binding +1s, and no -1s of any kind, the vote
> passes, I'll ask
I’m with Sylvain on this for essentially same reasons.
If we need to improve our extensibility here, we should do that, and then have
niche platform specific code
be an external plug-in (and add a link to the plug-in to our docs, to promote
it).
--
AY
On 12 May 2017 at 12:36:33, Sylvain Lebre
+1
--
AY
On 11 April 2017 at 19:59:32, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.13.
sha1: 91661ec296c6d089e3238e1a72f3861c449326aa
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.13-tentativ
Unsubscribe applications rejected, sorry.
--
AY
On 10 April 2017 at 14:10:05, Sara Prokop (sara.pro...@g2-ops.com) wrote:
Unsubscribe
Sara Prokop
G2 Ops, Inc.
Office: 757-330-0372
205 Business Park Drive, Suite 200
Virginia Beach, VA, 23462
This email and any files transmitted
+1 super binding.
--
AY
On 29 March 2017 at 16:22:03, Jason Brown (jasedbr...@gmail.com) wrote:
Hey all,
Following up my thread from a week or two ago (
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0665f40c7213654e99817141972c003a2131aba7a1c63d6765db75c5@%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E),
I'd lik
+1
--
AY
On 7 March 2017 at 16:15:32, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.12.
This release addresses a possible 2.1->3.0 upgrade issue[3], along with
a few fixes committed since 3.0.11.
sha1: 50560aaf0f2d395271ade59ba9b900a
+1
--
AY
On 16 February 2017 at 01:15:46, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.11.
sha1: 338226e042a22242645ab54a372c7c1459e78a01
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.11-tenta
+1
--
AY
On 16 February 2017 at 01:16:59, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.1.17.
sha1: 943db2488c8b62e1fbe03b132102f0e579c9ae17
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.1.17-tenta
+1
--
AY
On 16 February 2017 at 01:16:14, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.9.
sha1: 70a08f1c35091a36f7d9cc4816259210c2185267
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.2.9-tentati
To some extent it’s fluid.
For outright MV bugs (correctness, severe performance issues), 3.11 would still
be allowed.
Unless the change set touches too much code and is deemed to be potentially
destabilising.
I would recommend starting all the work on trunk, and on case-by-case basis
(think c
%20currentUser()))
--
AY
On 5 February 2017 at 17:47:33, Aleksey Yeschenko (alek...@apache.org) wrote:
HI all.
Now that 3.10 has finally been released, I’ve cleaned up several things, as
promised:
1. Cherry-picked bug fixes from cassandra-3.X branch into cassandra-3.11 branch
2. Fixed up
HI all.
Now that 3.10 has finally been released, I’ve cleaned up several things, as
promised:
1. Cherry-picked bug fixes from cassandra-3.X branch into cassandra-3.11 branch
2. Fixed up CHANGES.txt in both cassandra-3.11 branch and trunk
3. Dropped cassandra-3.X branch altogether
4. Added 3.11.x
+1
--
AY
On 31 January 2017 at 21:29:32, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.10.
sha1: 3cf415279c171fe20802ad90f181eed7da04c58d
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.10-tentative
fixversions
when 3.10 gets released.
Thank you.
--
AY
On 14 January 2017 at 21:35:35, Nate McCall (zznat...@gmail.com) wrote:
+1
Thanks for bringing this up.
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> It seems like we have a general consensus o
+1
--
AY
On 14 January 2017 at 00:47:08, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.10.
sha1: 9c2ab25556fad06a6a4d58f4bb652719a8a1bc27
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.10-tentative
on MV stability. It is an official 3.x
feature but not production ready for the masses.
Am 13.01.2017 18:34 schrieb "Jonathan Ellis" :
> +1
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all!
> >
> > It seems
suggest we kill off the 3.X branch, and cherry-pick
the bug fixes
that made it to 3.X back to the 3.11 branch.
3.11 branch will be the only one remaining.
https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/cassandra-3.X/CHANGES.txt
--
AY
On 13 January 2017 at 17:21:22, Aleksey Yeschenko (alek
Hi all!
It seems like we have a general consensus on ending tick-tock at 3.11, and
moving
on to stabilisation-only for 3.11.x series.
In light of this, I suggest immediate feature freeze in the 3.X branch.
Meaning that only bug fixes go to the 3.11/3.X branch from now on.
All new features that
That’s a good point.
So 3.11 after 3.10, then move on to 3.11.x further bug fix releases?
+1 to that.
--
AY
On 10 January 2017 at 17:22:09, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
I had the same thought. 3.10 is the tick, so a 3.11 bugfix tock follows
the intended final fix release f
I would personally favour pushing 3.10 out without waiting for the pretty
innocent
#13113 resolution.
With the amount of bug fixes accumulated in the 3.X branch it’s borderline
irresponsible to not release them out to the users.
--
AY
On 10 January 2017 at 17:05:57, Michael Shuler (mich...@pba
from now on.
You thinking monthly release on that or "as needed"? In theory, monthly
should be easier than previous tick-tock if we're only putting in bugfix or
testfix on the branch.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko
wrote:
> 6 months see
6 months seems reasonable to me as well.
There seems to be an agreement to halting 3.X on 3.10. I would also propose
we move on to 3.10.x bugfix only releases from now on, with all new feature
development moving to trunk from now on.
This should allow us to finally stabilise 3.X so that we can ge
If they aren’t regressions from 3.9, we should still push 3.10 out.
The branch has accumulated a lot of fixes, for problems that *are* real.
Just have a look at CHANGES.txt.
By holding 3.10 you are denying those (arguably few, but still) users fixes for
bugs that we
know are in.
It’s been more
You can write a patch for one, or create a custom authenticator implementation
that would enforce this.
They are pluggable after all, just like authorizer is.
--
AY
On 23 December 2016 at 20:06:19, Prakash Chauhan (prakash.chau...@ericsson.com)
wrote:
Hello All,
In Apache Cassandra , ther
It isn’t, but you are supposed to change it.
The reason it cannot be set higher by default is that out of the box
single-node clusters should still work,
and setting the default RF to higher than 1 would break this, as it performs
some queries at quorum CL.
--
AY
On 3 December 2016 at 06:47:1
I’ll comment on the broader issue, but right now I want to elaborate on
3.11/January/arbitrary cutoff date.
Doesn’t matter what the original plan was. We should continue with 3.X until
all the 4.0 blockers have been
committed - and there are quite a few of them remaining yet.
So given all the h
-1 for the reasons listed.
—
AY
On 11 November 2016 at 16:59:04, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
For the record, I'm changing my vote to a -1, as well.
--
Michael
On 11/11/2016 09:40 AM, Michael Shuler wrote:
> I think cassandra-3.0 HEAD is good with me, too. We can adju
Agreed.
--
AY
On 7 November 2016 at 16:38:07, Jeff Jirsa (jeff.ji...@crowdstrike.com) wrote:
‘Accepted’ JIRA status seems useful, but would encourage something more
explicit like ‘Concept Accepted’ or similar to denote that the concept is
agreed upon, but the actual patch itself may not be ac
I’d say they are interwoven with inappropriate passages that should have never
been typed,
and *all of them* came from ASF board members.
I feel like it would be in the interest of Apache Cassandra, and the greater
Apache community,
to expose the way the board treats its volunteer PMC and commit
I have a feeling that you didn’t even bother to check out the mailing list
threads that Łukasz linked to.
I encourage you, and others, to first do so, instead of blindly assuming that
their content is inappropriate.
--
AY
On 5 November 2016 at 00:14:42, Chris Mattmann (mattm...@apache.org) wr
You got this one completely wrong, my friend.
It’s the PMC who reached out to stratio and helped them get the changes they
required into Cassandra,
so that they could abandon the fork.
I know because I was that PMC member.
cc Andres from Stratio
--
AY
On 5 November 2016 at 00:14:42, Chris Ma
Dunno. A sneaky correctness or data corruption bug. A performance regression.
Or something that can take a node/cluster down.
Of course no process is bullet-proof. The purpose of review is to minimise the
odds of such a thing happening.
I’m sure users running Cassandra in production would prefe
patches
to stay in unreviewed limbo for the most part.
But significant work will still get reviewed and committed, keeping the project
overall healthy. I wouldn’t worry much.
--
AY
On 4 November 2016 at 22:13:42, Aleksey Yeschenko (alek...@apache.org) wrote:
This has always been a concern. We’ve
This has always been a concern. We’ve always had a backlog on unreviewed
patches.
Reviews (real reviews, not rubber-stamping a +1 formally) are real work, often
taking as much work
as creating the patch in question. And taking as much expertise (or more).
It’s also not ‘fun’ and doesn’t lend it
+1
--
AY
On 31 October 2016 at 15:19:00, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.10.
sha1: a3828ca8b755fc98799867baf07039f7ff53be05
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.10-tentative
+1
--
AY
On 31 October 2016 at 16:12:08, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.10.
sha1: 817ba038783212b716f6981b26c8348ffdc92f59
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.10-tentat
I’m not sure it makes sense to have separate features/stability releases in
that world. 4.0.x will be stable, every 4.x will be a dev release on the road
to 5.0.
--
AY
On 20 October 2016 at 22:43:19, Jeff Jirsa (jji...@apache.org) wrote:
On 2016-10-20 14:21 (-0700), Jeremiah Jordan wrote:
+1
--
AY
On 6 October 2016 at 15:32:46, Gary Dusbabek (gdusba...@gmail.com) wrote:
+1
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Michael Shuler
wrote:
> I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.1.16.
>
> sha1: 87034cd05964e64c6c925597279865a40a8c152f
> Git:
> http://git-wip-us.a
+1
--
AY
On 30 September 2016 at 19:51:32, Nate McCall (zzn...@apache.org) wrote:
I propose we begin the process of accepting the contribution of the
dtest codebase (https://github.com/riptano/cassandra-dtest) into the
project.
Background discussion thread here:
https://lists.apache.or
We had one accidental merge from 3.0 into 3.9 (looking at you, you know who you
are), so could be.
--
AY
On 28 September 2016 at 17:48:27, Philip Thompson
(philip.thomp...@datastax.com) wrote:
That ticket was only supposed to be committed to 3.10 and 3.0.x. Was it
accidentally also merged i
No way to do that via Thrift I’m afraid, nor will there be one. Sorry.
--
AY
On 28 September 2016 at 16:43:58, Roman Bielik
(roman.bie...@openmindnetworks.com) wrote:
Hi,
in CQL it is possible to create a table with explicit ID: CREATE TABLE ...
WITH ID='xyz'.
Is something like this po
WFM
--
AY
On 27 September 2016 at 11:18:33, Sylvain Lebresne (sylv...@datastax.com) wrote:
We have a number of tickets that we now have to wait on 4.0 due to needing a
messaging protocol change or major sstable format (https://goo.gl/OvqNQp),
and
we currently have no branch for those. And
+1
--
AY
On 26 September 2016 at 16:12:50, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.9.
sha1: c1fa21458777b51a9b21795330ed6f298103b436
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.9-tentative
+1
--
AY
On 26 September 2016 at 15:52:26, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.8.
sha1: ce609d19fd130e16184d9e6d37ffee4a1ebad607
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.8-tentative
among PMCs. If something changed,
it’ll be reflected in the vote.
--
AY
On 23 September 2016 at 21:39:09, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
Jonathan's is a pretty compelling perspective.
--
Michael
On 09/23/2016 07:04 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> Both are effecti
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 plac
+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
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
+1
--
AY
On 15 September 2016 at 11:58:24, Jake Luciani (j...@apache.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.9.
sha1: d600f51ee1a3eb7b30ce3c409129567b70c22012
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.9-tentative
Ar
Can’t really forcefully assign work, including review work, to volunteers.
So I’m not sure what we can do here, other than perhaps create some sort of
dashboard
to show tickets with unassigned reviewers, and tickets with overdue reviews.
Both can be easily done as JIRA filters, however.
As an i
Also, Github’s ability to modify files ‘in-place’ and create pull requests from
those changes is
extremely important for our Docs progress. Now that we have proper in-tree
documentation,
this would lower the barrier for Docs writers tremendously.
--
AY
On 26 August 2016 at 17:15:54, Jake Lucia
Mark, I, for one, will be happy with the level of GitHub integration that Spark
has, formal or otherwise.
As it stands right now, none of the committers/PMC members have any control
over Cassandra Github mirror.
Which, among other things, means that we cannot even close the erroneously
opened
No worries. It was a somewhat.. messy thread.
And it’s taken us a while to get the tests to this level, so it’s somewhat far
away in time in the past.
--
AY
On 24 August 2016 at 20:43:39, Mark Thomas (ma...@apache.org) wrote:
On 24/08/2016 20:26, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> No. Removin
No. Removing a dead branch is just mindless admin work.
As for 3.8/3.9 plans, look up the previous quite lengthy vote discussion on
3.8, on dev.
--
AY
On 24 August 2016 at 20:23:04, Mark Thomas (ma...@apache.org) wrote:
On 24/08/2016 16:44, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> Also, cassan
Correction: s/12528/11195/g. I’m an idiot who cannot copy-paste.
Also, cassandra-3.8 branch was removed from the repo, to further minimise
confusion.
--
AY
On 24 August 2016 at 16:25:21, Aleksey Yeschenko (alek...@apache.org) wrote:
TL;DR: cassandra-3.8 branch is dead; cassandra-3.9 is
TL;DR: cassandra-3.8 branch is dead; cassandra-3.9 is frozen, unless you are
committing the fix for #12140 or #12528.
For everything else go cassandra-3.0 -> trunk.
There has been some confusion regarding the current branch merge order that I’d
like to clarify.
As you’ve seen from Joel’s last e
No objections, the plan sounds good to me.
In addition to that, prep for pushing 3.0.9 out with 3.9.
--
AY
On 16 August 2016 at 16:51:24, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
Yesterday, it was suggested on #cassandra-dev that when 3.9 is ready for
release, we release 3.8 with the s
fact, I don’t see JIRA sent to the dev list at all so you are
basically
forking the conversation to a high noise list by putting it all in JIRA.
On 8/15/16, 10:11 AM, "Aleksey Yeschenko" wrote:
I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs on the
dev@
I too feel like it would be sufficient to announce those major JIRAs on the
dev@ list, but keep all discussion itself to JIRA, where it belongs.
You don’t need to follow every ticket this way, just subscribe to dev@ and then
start watching the select major JIRAs you care about.
--
AY
On 15 Au
responding to a block of prose with
multiple clauses, suggestions and no single proposition requiring a yes/no
answer.
As fun as it is to type -1.
On Thursday, 28 July 2016, Jake Luciani > wrote:
> -1
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko
> wrote:
>
alternatives and voting?
--
Kind regards,
Michael
On 07/27/2016 06:33 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> The difference is that those -1s were based on new information
> discovered after the vote was started, while this one wasn’t.
>
> In addition to that, the discussi
intended to swap my +1 with a -1, but was not given a chance to do so.
As for what alternative I prefer, I’m not sure yet.
--
AY
On 27 July 2016 at 09:59:50, Sylvain Lebresne (sylv...@datastax.com) wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko
wrote:
> Sorry, but I’m count
, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko
wrote:
> Sorry, but I’m counting 3 binding +1s and 1 binding -1 (2, if you
> interpret Jonathan’s emails as such).
>
> Thus, if you were to do close the vote now, the vote is passing with the
> binding majority, and the required m
uld recommend we go ahead and fix this before releasing, and to
> avoid a super compressed 3.9 window either retarget 3.8 for August, or 3.9
> for September.
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko
> wrote:
>
>> What we’d usually do is r
We don’t need to block 4.0 on #8110.
What we need is to block those sstable-format related tickets on *either* #8110
*or* 4.0.
#8110 itself can go anywhere in 3.x or 4.x.
--
AY
On 21 July 2016 at 15:38:58, Jason Brown (jasedbr...@gmail.com) wrote:
Sylvain,
In the large, yes, that is the b
o knowing that
2. has the small advantage of keeping the 3.0.x and 3.x versions released
more or less in lockstep).
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko
> wrote:
>
> > I still think the issue is minor enough, and with 3.8 being extremely
> &g
I still think the issue is minor enough, and with 3.8 being extremely delayed,
and being a non-odd release, at that, we’d be better off just pushing it.
Also, I know we’ve been easy on -1s when voting on releases, but I want to
remind people in general that release votes can not be vetoed and on
3.10 most likely.
--
AY
On 21 July 2016 at 01:28:13, Jake Luciani (jak...@gmail.com) wrote:
Will that be in 3.x or 4?
I don’t think so, b/c https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12142
will allow us to develop them incrementally.
--
AY
On 20 July 2016 at 22:03:37, Jake Luciani (jak...@gmail.com) wrote:
Also, anything related to native protocol v5
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=labels%20%
he patch against "a few hundred of thousands" without. I suppose
> one
> > could make a case that having repair over-stream by 3 order of magnitude
> in
> > some case is critical-ish. Note that I wouldn't oppose reverting this
> too,
> > as it doesn&#
+1
--
AY
On 20 July 2016 at 22:48:09, Michael Shuler (mshu...@apache.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.8.
sha1: c3ded0551f538f7845602b27d53240cd8129265c
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.8-tentative
Artifa
+1 from me (and I don’t see any resistance to it either).
--
AY
On 18 July 2016 at 18:36:42, Jonathan Ellis (jbel...@gmail.com) wrote:
Except there really wasn't.
Patch submitter: "I want this in 2.1."
Reviewer: "Okay."
That's not exactly the bar we're looking for. To consider a perform
I’d strike CASSANDRA-10383 off the list - there is no way it’s a blocker for
anything.
As for 9424, unless I die unexpectedly *and* nobody else picks up the work, it
should be fine for Nov.
Don’t see anything missing from the list.
--
AY
On 20 July 2016 at 15:59:34, Jason Brown (jasedbr...@g
+1
--
AY
On 1 July 2016 at 16:41:00, Jake Luciani (j...@apache.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.8.
sha1: 8b21d9e9e975ea07023ae6ec4c04d997006c1a0a
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.8-tentative
Artifact
+1
--
AY
On 1 July 2016 at 15:59:02, Jake Luciani (j...@apache.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.7.
sha1: 092054170ec3daf92ec494a0db295037d3563229
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.2.7-tentative
Artifact
+1
--
AY
On 30 June 2016 at 20:31:11, Jake Luciani (j...@apache.org) wrote:
I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.1.15.
sha1: cb14186f8d6c2d1105a51e409c59a4e424958171
Git:
http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.1.15-tentative
Artif
Schema will disagree during the upgrade itself, you can’t really work around
it. It will converge once you finish the upgrade, however.
--
AY
On 20 June 2016 at 04:21:02, Michael Fong (michael.f...@ruckuswireless.com)
wrote:
Hi,
We have recently encountered several schema disagreement issu
When in doubt, just open a JIRA. Thanks.
--
AY
On 15 June 2016 at 13:56:24, Anuj Wadehra (anujw_2...@yahoo.co.in.invalid)
wrote:
Should I raise JIRA ?? Or some develiper with knowledge of STCS could confirm
the bug ??
Anuj
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 14 Jun, 2016 at 12:
+1
--
AY
On 8 June 2016 at 16:31:35, Brandon Williams (dri...@gmail.com) wrote:
+1
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Jake Luciani wrote:
> I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.7.
>
> sha1: 040ac666ac5cdf9cd0a01a845f2ea0af3a81a08b
> Git:
>
> http://git-wip-us.apach
1 - 100 of 210 matches
Mail list logo
