Re: CEP-15 Update

Hooray! Huge thanks to all! Now, I have no more excuses — it's time to try it :-D On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 at 23:42, Jordan West wrote: > Congrats all! My previous reservations (that have been addressed) aside, > this is an amazing milestone. Awesome, awesome work! > > Jordan > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025

Re: CEP-15 Update

What an amazing effort. Congrats to everyone who got it here so far. Can't wait to see the impact on our project and given the level of excitement in the user community, it will be huge. Now I have to update my awesome-accord Docker build! Patrick On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 7:23 AM Jeremy Hanna wr

Re: CEP-15 Update

Congratulations on this significant milestone and all of the years of effort to get to this point. > On Apr 18, 2025, at 9:11 AM, Paulo Motta wrote: > > Awesome milestone, congrats and thanks to all involved! 👏👏👏 > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 at 05:19 Dmitry Konstantinov

Re: CEP-15 Update

I think you awesome guys added so much additional testing that probably now Jenkins can’t keep up 🤣 Seems like some CI jobs timed out while still running tests after Accord got merged 😀 Jokes aside, awesome work! Huge congratulations to all the people involved! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Thank you all!! On Fri, 18 A

Re: CEP-15 Update

Awesome milestone, congrats and thanks to all involved! 👏👏👏 On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 at 05:19 Dmitry Konstantinov wrote: > Hooray! Huge thanks to all! Now, I have no more excuses — it's time to try > it :-D > > On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 at 23:42, Jordan West wrote: > >> Congrats all! My previous reservati

Re: CEP-15 Update

Congrats all! My previous reservations (that have been addressed) aside, this is an amazing milestone. Awesome, awesome work! Jordan On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 15:07 David Capwell wrote: > I have merged cep-15-accord into trunk. If you experience any issues > please reach out to me > > > On Apr 1

Re: CEP-15 Update

I have merged cep-15-accord into trunk. If you experience any issues please reach out to me > On Apr 17, 2025, at 12:55 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith > wrote: > > Final update: David has completed a second rebase after we reached parity > with trunk on our CI, and has confirmed tests remain sta

Re: CEP-15 Update

Final update: David has completed a second rebase after we reached parity with trunk on our CI, and has confirmed tests remain stable. So I expect CEP-15 to merge to trunk sometime today. No doubt there will be some unexpected disruption to others after a patch like this lands. Reach out via sl

Re: CEP-15 Update

Hi everyone, To update you: the last patches we considered blockers have landed in the cep-15-accord branch. Caleb has now started rebasing the branch onto trunk. I expect there will be a few failing tests still to resolve at that point, but once they have been squashed we will proceed with the

Re: CEP-15 Update

While I agree that time spent working on a feature is not necessarily a clear indicator of maturity, one can judge the scope of work and thought that went into Accord by both its separate repository, and the working branch. I think that merging/accepting SASI was not a mistake. There were sever

Re: CEP-15 Update

I’m also supportive of proceeding to merge.The CEP contributors have worked incredibly hard on the protocol and feature and I’m proud it’s reached this point.If the concern is trunk stability - we have been deploying trunk-derived builds for over six months and will continue to do so post-merge. Ma

Re: CEP-15 Update

It sounds like we are all pretty interested in seeing this feature land and the branch maintenance is causing overhead that could be spent on finalisation. +1 on merging, particularly given the feature flag work. Once more unto the breach 💪 On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 at 6:56 PM, Benedict wrote: > There

Re: CEP-15 Update

Because we want to validate against the latest code in trunk, else we are validating stale behaviours. The cost of rebasing is high, so we do not do it frequently. That means we will likely stop developing OSS-first, as the focus will have to move to our internal branch that satisfies these crit

Re: CEP-15 Update

Merging is certainly not blocked on my account. Benedict, I wouldn’t describe myself as disappointed. It’s awesome work and I’ve tried to acknowledge the amazing correctness testing that’s been done. I think we should have a high bar for big changes like this and I was curious about how we will add

Re: CEP-15 Update

My understanding then is that we are free to merge once we are ready? We will be directing our resources on this basis, so please pipe up promptly if you disagree. We will update the list once we have our final patches merged (which should be a good time to kick the tyres for those inclined), an

Re: CEP-15 Update

1. Just a quick reminder that CASSANDRA-18196 is where we had been tracking this previously with respect to things like the feature flag ( CASSANDRA-18195 ), etc. I'm not su

Re: CEP-15 Update

I would love to have my questions answered and see some graphs I don’t think those are unreasonable asks nor do they take away from the awesome work done. I was suggesting 1-2 weeks for folks to have the opportunity to produce that data if the original authors didn’t have time. I also don’t think t

Re: CEP-15 Update

I defer to the judgement of the folks that are most impacted by it - ones that are in the code, working on the next release. If you all think it's good to merge, then I am 100% in support of it. I suspect merging will help get it out faster, and I don't see any future in which we don't ship this

Re: CEP-15 Update

3.5 years is an incredible amount of time and work; it really is significant and thanks to everyone involved for the investment of time and energy. We have a rocky history with large, disruptive contributions in the past that have either blocked forward progress post-merge (CASSANDRA-8099), or l

Re: CEP-15 Update

There are essentially three possible timelines to choose from here: 1) We agree in the next few days to merge to trunk. We will then prioritise rebasing onto trunk and resolving any pre-merge items starting next week.2) There’s some more debate and agreement to merge to trunk in a week or two. In t

Re: CEP-15 Update

A couple questions: - are there some graphs or raw data that has or could be shared to help quantify what is meant by “SLOW”? If not maybe worth taking Jon up on his offer of an ECL build after a last rebase and a short time box? I could likely take it for a spin over the weekend. Might need a coup

Re: CEP-15 Update

> I don’t find it terrible that the feature is proven out in an internal > feature branch first if the end result is a better feature for the community. I don’t think it’s going to be merged and designated as production ready. I think the intention is to mark it experimental/alpha/beta/whatever

Re: CEP-15 Update

Having played with the branch and confirmed it’s relatively isolated, I would love to see it mergedOn Mar 6, 2025, at 8:44 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith wrote:Because we want to validate against the latest code in trunk, else we are validating stale behaviours. The cost of rebasing is high, so we do

Re: CEP-15 Update

Regarding the merge: I have the same question as Jon about rebasing the feature branch vs a merge to trunk. And again want to recognize that we are asking more from the maintainers here. I totally acknowledge this is not zero cost. But I don’t find it terrible that the feature is proven out in an i

Re: CEP-15 Update

Hmm... I took a look at the cep-15-accord branch in GitHub, it looks like it's several hundred commits behind trunk. Since you'll need to rebase again before merge *anyways*, would it make sense to do it once more, and I can publish easy-cass-lab with the latest branch? If folks have concerns, it

Re: CEP-15 Update

I have no stake in this feature besides thinking it would enable some great new end user workloads. Also it actually makes my professional life easier the longer this code is not merged. But given the new feature (and its caveats) are behind a yaml flag, as well as opt in at the table level, I don

Re: CEP-15 Update

The work and effort in accord has been amazing. And I’m sure it sets a new standard for code quality and correctness testing which I’m also entirely behind. I also trust the folks working on it want to take it to the a fully production ready solution. But I’m worried about circumstances out of our

Re: CEP-15 Update

+1 to merging it On Wed, Mar 5, 2025, at 12:22 PM, Patrick McFadin wrote: > You have my +1 > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 12:16 PM Benedict wrote: > > > > Correct, these caveats should only apply to tables that have opted-in to > > accord. > > > > On 5 Mar 2025, at 20:08, Jeremiah Jordan wrote: >

Re: CEP-15 Update

You have my +1 On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 12:16 PM Benedict wrote: > > Correct, these caveats should only apply to tables that have opted-in to > accord. > > On 5 Mar 2025, at 20:08, Jeremiah Jordan wrote: > >  > So great to see all this hard work about to pay off! > > On the questions/concerns fr

Re: CEP-15 Update

Correct, these caveats should only apply to tables that have opted-in to accord.On 5 Mar 2025, at 20:08, Jeremiah Jordan wrote: So great to see all this hard work about to pay off!On the questions/concerns front, the only concern I would have towards merging this to trunk is if any of the cav

Re: CEP-15 Update

So great to see all this hard work about to pay off! On the questions/concerns front, the only concern I would have towards merging this to trunk is if any of the caveats apply when someone is not using Accord. Assuming they only apply when the feature flag is enabled, I see no reason not to get

Re: CEP-15 Update

That depends on all of you lovely people :D I think we should have finished merging everything we want before QA by ~Monday; certainly not much later. I think we have some upgrade and python dtest failures to address as well. So it could be pretty soon if the community is supportive. > On 5 Ma

Re: CEP-15 Update

What is the timing for starting the merge process? I'm asking because I have (yet another) presentation and this would be a cool update. On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 1:22 AM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > > Thanks everyone. > > Jon - your help will be greatly appreciated. We’ll let you know when we’ve

Re: CEP-15 Update

Thanks everyone. Jon - your help will be greatly appreciated. We’ll let you know when we’ve got the cycles to invest in performance work (hopefully fairly soon). I expect the first step will be improving visibility so we can better understand what the system is doing (particularly the caching

Re: CEP-15 Update

"Captain's log. It's been three and a half years, and we haven't seen any land yet but saw sea birds and know land is near..." It's taken the time that it takes, but time to merge and I think we're all ready to pitch in however we can. This is feature for the next generation of Cassandra users. Ta

Re: CEP-15 Update

Thank you for the update and a BIG thanks to all involved in getting us to this milestone. Looking forward to this work being merged in so we can kick the tires and help surface any issues early. On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 8:01 AM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > Hi everyone, > > It’s been exactly 3.

Re: CEP-15 Update

Very exciting! I have a client that's very interested in Accord, so I should have budget to dig into it, especially on the performance side of things. Jon On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 9:57 AM Dmitry Konstantinov wrote: > Thank you to all Accord and TCM contributors, it is really exciting to see > a

Re: CEP-15 Update

Thank you to all Accord and TCM contributors, it is really exciting to see a development of such huge and wonderful features moving forward and opening the door to the new Cassandra epoch! On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 at 20:45, Blake Eggleston wrote: > Thanks Benedict! > > I’m really excited to see accord

Re: CEP-15 Update

Thanks Benedict! I’m really excited to see accord reach this milestone, even with these caveats. You seem to have left yourself off the list of contributors though, even though you’ve been a central figure in its development :) So thanks to all accord & tcm contributors, including Benedict, for

CEP-15 Update

Hi everyone, It’s been exactly 3.5 years since the first commit to cassandra-accord. Yes, really, it’s been that long. We will be starting to validate the feature against real workloads in the near future, so we can’t sensibly push off merging much longer. The following is a brief run-down of