On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko
wrote:
> 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.
>
You're right, I kind of listed the ticket a bit quickly.
>
> #8110 itself can go anywhere in 3.x or
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
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Jason Brown wrote:
> Sylvain,
>
> In the large, yes, that is the best "have enough mechanism in place that no
> further ticket _have to_ wait for a major", but many of the tickets we are
> talking about makes changes to things we've all agreed can *only* happen at
Sylvain,
In the large, yes, that is the best "have enough mechanism in place that no
further ticket _have to_ wait for a major", but many of the tickets we are
talking about makes changes to things we've all agreed can *only* happen at
majors, as per the http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/Compatibil
I think this is the right way to think about the problem.
Does 12042, 9424, 8110 cover those bases then?
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Sylvain Lebresne
wrote:
> My very own preference would be to actually focus on making 4.0 the release
> where have enough mechanism in place that no further
My very own preference would be to actually focus on making 4.0 the release
where have enough mechanism in place that no further ticket _have to_ wait
for a major. That means at least making sure CASSANDRA-12042 makes it in,
adding some proper versioning of schemas and CASSANDRA-8110.
If we had al
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?
Will that be in 3.x or 4?
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko
wrote:
> 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:
>
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%
Also, anything related to native protocol v5
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=labels%20%3D%20protocolv5
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Jason Brown wrote:
> forgot to mention that 8457 changes the internode messaging protocol, so
> needs to fall on a major version boundary.
>
> If 84
forgot to mention that 8457 changes the internode messaging protocol, so
needs to fall on a major version boundary.
If 8457 does go forward, and CASSANDRA-8911 (mutation-based repair) does
*not* happen, we'll need something like CASSANDRA-12229 (to support
streaming under the non-blocking/netty mo
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
There’s also:
CASSANDRA-10520 Compressed writer and reader should support non-compressed data
(changes sstable format)
CASSANDRA-10383 Disable auto snapshot on selected tables (changes schema)
—
Robert Stupp
@snazy
> On 21 Jul 2016, at 00:59, Jason Brown wrote:
>
> CASSANDRA-8457 - nio Messag
CASSANDRA-8457 - nio MessagingService. Patch is up and awaiting review
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> The plan of record has been to ship 4.0 in November, 12 months after 3.0.
> But, there are a number of features that are going to cause backwards
> incompatibility and
The plan of record has been to ship 4.0 in November, 12 months after 3.0.
But, there are a number of features that are going to cause backwards
incompatibility and if they miss 4.0 will need to wait for 5.0. Are any of
these worth delaying 4.0 for?
(Currently the plan is to have all of these read
15 matches
Mail list logo
