On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
>> I'm rather fond of how user-friendly the Python suite is (taking care
>> of server setup/teardown transparently) but realistically, now that we
>> have robust truncate, it's probably fine to require an existing server
>> and just use that.
>
>
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Rick Shaw wrote:
>> For what it is worth, my preference would be to have unit tests that would
>> form a regression testing package in the tree with the client sources.
>
> Ditto.
>
>> I think that makes me
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Rick Shaw wrote:
> For what it is worth, my preference would be to have unit tests that would
> form a regression testing package in the tree with the client sources.
Ditto.
> I think that makes me favor option #3.
I'm rather fond of how user-friendly the Python
For what it is worth, my preference would be to have unit tests that would form
a regression testing package in the tree with the client sources. Ideally the
build package (whether dedicated or mixed in with the server) would have
specific tasks to build, test and install/deploy devoted to the i
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
>> I posed a similar question about the JDBC driver in CASSANDRA-2936.
>>
>> Should these tests be considered functional tests of Cassandra, and
>> left be left where they are? I know that w
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
>>> CASSANDRA-2936 is in progress (patches attached), but is there any
>>> reason not to get started with the Python driver now?
>>
>>
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
> I posed a similar question about the JDBC driver in CASSANDRA-2936.
>
> Should these tests be considered functional tests of Cassandra, and
> left be left where they are? I know that was my intention WRT
> test_cql.py (the driver itself has a fe
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
>> CASSANDRA-2936 is in progress (patches attached), but is there any
>> reason not to get started with the Python driver now?
>
> Heads up that test/system/test_cql.py depends on the Pyth
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
> CASSANDRA-2936 is in progress (patches attached), but is there any
> reason not to get started with the Python driver now?
Heads up that test/system/test_cql.py depends on the Python driver.
It should probably be moved to the Python driver's te
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
>> No one else has sounded off on this, does that mean it's safe to
>> assume there is consensus on this?
>
> Looks like it. The opinions on irc were positive, too.
>
>> If so, is it Apac
I agree that apache extras makes better sense sense it's Branded (tm) and
has git.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Robert Jackson
> wrote:
> > On Aug 29, 2011, at 11:17 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
> >> If so, is it Apache Extras or Github (eithe
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Robert Jackson
wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2011, at 11:17 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
>> If so, is it Apache Extras or Github (either would be fine by me).
>>
> Either would be good, but I have a preference for GitHub (easier workflow).
Generally I prefer Github too, but the b
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
> No one else has sounded off on this, does that mean it's safe to
> assume there is consensus on this?
Looks like it. The opinions on irc were positive, too.
> If so, is it Apache Extras or Github (either would be fine by me).
No strong feel
On Aug 29, 2011, at 11:17 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
> No one else has sounded off on this, does that mean it's safe to
> assume there is consensus on this?
>
I definitely think this is the right move.
> If so, is it Apache Extras or Github (either would be fine by me).
>
Either woul
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>> The git mirror is also a symptom of a deeper problem. Managing the
>> drivers from the same Jira system as core is awkward too. Nor does
>> three-day release voting or patch-oriented
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> The JDBC problems can be subdivided into two categories: too-tight
> coupling that having it in-tree masks (but is really a problem either
> way), and java build systems being a PITA. By the second part I mean,
> yes, we had JDBC building
So to summarize the problems with the original move,
1) the git problem
2) the JDBC build problems
3) the cqlsh problem
In reverse order:
The cqlsh problem is not the same as the JDBC problem. The cqlsh
problem is simply, "if we have a cql shell that we ship, it would be
convenient to have th
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Gary Dusbabek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 17:22, Eric Evans wrote:
>> There are some workarounds that have been proposed for moving the
>> drivers back under Cassandra's source tree while creating independent
>> releases from there. For example, keeping the
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 17:22, Eric Evans wrote:
> There's been discussion happening in #2761
> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2761) on and off now
> for more than 3 months, and I think it could benefit from some wider
> exposure.
>
> The issue was created in the wake of the driv
19 matches
Mail list logo
