+1
Regards,
Hiram
FuseSource
Web: http://fusesource.com/
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> Way back in Nov 09, we did a users survey and asked what features
> people wanted to see. Here was my summary of the responses:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-user@incu
+1 on starting a more predictable release cycle for Cassandra and doing more
multi-node testing. I don't care at all about what version number it is.
On Jan 11, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> Way back in Nov 09, we did a users survey and asked what features
> people wanted to see. H
+1 On making unit tests & distributed tests robust
(with & without ec2)
Sri
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Ryan King wrote:
> I'm a -1 on naming the next release 1.0 because I don't think it has
> the quality that 1.0 implies, but to be honest I don't really care
> that much. The version numb
+1...
Regards,
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> Way back in Nov 09, we did a users survey and asked what features
> people wanted to see. Here was my summary of the responses:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-user@incubator.apache.org/msg01446.html
>
> Looki
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Ryan King wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>>...
>> In other words, at some point you have so many production users that
>> it's silly to pretend it's ready for 1.0. I'd say we've passed that
>> point.
>
> Did you mean to say "sill
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>...
> In other words, at some point you have so many production users that
> it's silly to pretend it's ready for 1.0. I'd say we've passed that
> point.
Did you mean to say "silly to pretend it's *not* ready for 1.0"?
Otherwise, I don't un
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 19:20 -0800, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> > -0
> >
> > I've said it elsewhere, but the only reason to fuss about a 1.0, is
> > that it is loaded with special meaning.
>
> Right: that's what we should be doing. Up to and including the start
> of 0.6 you almost had to have a commi
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Ryan King wrote:
> I'm a -1 on naming the next release 1.0 because I don't think it has
> the quality that 1.0 implies, but to be honest I don't really care
> that much. The version numbers don't really effect those that of use
> that are running production cluster
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 19:35 -0600, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>> Way back in Nov 09, we did a users survey and asked what features
>> people wanted to see. Here was my summary of the responses:
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-user@incubator
I'm a -1 on naming the next release 1.0 because I don't think it has
the quality that 1.0 implies, but to be honest I don't really care
that much. The version numbers don't really effect those that of use
that are running production clusters. Calling it 1.0 won't make it any
more stable or faster.
> In that environment, I think the production grade validation is important.
A bump in version number does not give you production grade validation: in
fact, it is the other way around.
I'm -1 on going to 1.0 for the next release.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Thu, 201
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 16:34 +, Nick Telford wrote:
> ...or the Ubuntu route and call it Apache Cassandra 11.08 (or whatever
> month the release occurs in). The number itself is relatively
> unimportant.
And while we're at it, how about a codename in adjective-animal form?
Some suggestions:
*
We could go the Microsoft route and call it Apache Cassandra 2011, or the
Ubuntu route and call it Apache Cassandra 11.08 (or whatever month the
release occurs in). The number itself is relatively unimportant.
I believe what Jonathan is proposing is a change to something that implies a
level of st
Speaking more for an organization that works with a lot of external parties
using Cassandra (that don't necessarily develop on it), I think the pivot to
1.0 makes better sense. A lot of the world is still coming to know Cassandra
vs. any other NoSQL type solution. In that environment, I think th
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Eric Evans wrote:
> I'd rather drop the leading the 0 and continue to number releases
> sequentially the way we have. If our < 1 versioning is signaling a lack
> of readiness, and if >= 1 is a necessary gate, then 8.0 should work
> equally as well. Better in fact
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
> I've said it elsewhere, but the only reason to fuss about a 1.0, is that
> it is loaded with special meaning. To impart some vague notion of
> readiness on people who should be paying less attention to a number, and
> doing more due diligence.
Can I vote with a "+100" ? :)
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 07:55 -0300, Germán Kondolf wrote:
>> Will CQL be included in the 1.0 release?
>
> CQL 1.0 will be the next release. :)
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> eev...@rackspace.com
>
>
--
//GK
http://twitt
On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 07:55 -0300, Germán Kondolf wrote:
> Will CQL be included in the 1.0 release?
CQL 1.0 will be the next release. :)
--
Eric Evans
eev...@rackspace.com
Will CQL be included in the 1.0 release?
// Germán Kondolf
http://twitter.com/germanklf
http://code.google.com/p/seide/
On 12/01/2011, at 01:29, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 19:35 -0600, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>> Way back in Nov 09, we did a users survey and asked what features
>> p
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 19:35 -0600, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> Way back in Nov 09, we did a users survey and asked what features
> people wanted to see. Here was my summary of the responses:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-user@incubator.apache.org/msg01446.html
>
> Looking at that, we've don
> User documentation: done (http://www.riptano.com/docs)
Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere but, is this a permanent
home? Is there to be mirror on the official site? Surely if the
project itself doesn't have user documentation then the milestone has
not been reached by the project.
I u
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> The list--
Through a copy/paste error I left out the first one:
Increment/decrement: done
:)
--
Jonathan Ellis
Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
co-founder of Riptano, the source for professional Cassandra support
http://riptano.com
+1 days ago I was wondering about the gap between 0.7 and a future 1.0, the
answer is just a few more enhancements like you said. :)
Excellent news :)
// Germán Kondolf
http://twitter.com/germanklf
http://code.google.com/p/seide/
// @i4
On 11/01/2011, at 22:35, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> Way bac
: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Time for 1.0
+1.0
I'm not a committer, but I think a 1.0 is warranted, especially given the
number of folks who have the application in production. (In fact, 0.7 would
have made a reasonable 1.0.)
-- Paul
On Jan 11, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Jonathan E
+1.0
I'm not a committer, but I think a 1.0 is warranted, especially given the
number of folks who have the application in production. (In fact, 0.7 would
have made a reasonable 1.0.)
-- Paul
On Jan 11, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> Way back in Nov 09, we did a users survey and
Way back in Nov 09, we did a users survey and asked what features
people wanted to see. Here was my summary of the responses:
http://www.mail-archive.com/cassandra-user@incubator.apache.org/msg01446.html
Looking at that, we've done essentially all of them. I think we can
make a strong case that
26 matches
Mail list logo
