Hi list,
this is the follow-up thread after we discussed the addition of Deprecated
annotations with "since" in the code. It was merged to 5.0 and trunk under
18912.
I have added all the mappings under (1). There are tables for each major
version of Cassandra with links to all places where we
The proposal includes 3 things:
1. Do not include TCM and Accord in 5.0 to avoid delaying 5.0
2. The next release will be 5.1 and will include only Accord and TCM
3. Merge TCM and Accord right now in 5.1 (making an initial release)
I am fine with question 1 and do not have a strong opinion on whic
I ended up posting the code at
https://github.com/Aiven-Labs/compare_oshi_sigar if anyone wants to take a
look and see if they get differing results on various systems.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 4:59 PM Brandon Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 7:48 AM Claude Warren, Jr via dev
> wrote:
>
I just had to change dependencies in Cassandra for the first time and I
think the documentation [1] is out of date.
First I think most of the file edits are in the ".build" directory. Adding
jars to the "lib" directory works until calling "ant realclean", so perhaps
the instructions should inclu
Hi Claude,
You are not wrong. Unfortunately, it is outdated. Abe Ratnofsky has a work
in progress patch. You might want to get in touch with him to finish it.
Best regards,
Ekaterina
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 8:04, Claude Warren, Jr via dev <
dev@cassandra.apache.org> wrote:
> I just had to change d
+1 to drop if we're not using.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023, at 6:58 PM, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote:
> +1 on removal the whole lib if we are sure we don’t need it. Nothing better
> than some healthy house cleaning
>
> -1 on partial removals
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 at 17:34, David Capwell wrote:
>> +1
Is the primary pain point you're trying to solve getting a 2nd committer
reviewer Maxim? And / or making the review process simpler / cleaner for
someone?
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023, at 5:06 PM, Maxim Muzafarov wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> It has been a long time since the last update on this thread,
> If we cannot meet at least that quality level (Green CI) we should not merge
We should probably make it a formally agreed upon point to not merge things
unless we're sure they won't destabilize, and thus block release of, a branch.
So green CI for a feature (excepting feature-specific tests if
+1 (nb) - wiłl be nice for the analytics writer to be able to size SSTables
appropriately and efficiently.
Doug
> On Oct 24, 2023, at 10:36 PM, guo Maxwell wrote:
>
> 😄
>
> Chris Lohfink mailto:clohfin...@gmail.com>>
> 于2023年10月25日周三 05:02写道：
>> +1
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 11:24 AM Bra
>
> If we do a 5.1 release why not take it as an opportunity to release more
> things. I am not saying that we will. Just that we should let that door
> open.
>
Agreed. This is the reason I brought up the possibility of not branching
off 5.1 immediately.
On Oct 25, 2023 at 3:17:13 AM, Benjamin
Hi everyone,
Thanks, Mick, for raising the topic.
I support having released 5.0 without waiting on Accord and TCM as
previously discussed here. (we are almost November, and the features
are not ready. The currently committed set is glamorous in its own way
:-) )https://lists.apache.org/thread/9c5c
IR patch is up for review https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-18962
> On Oct 24, 2023, at 3:15 PM, David Capwell wrote:
>
> I sat down to add IR messages to the mix… given how positive the feedback was
> for other repair messages I assume people are still ok with this new IR work
>
I'm open to the suggestions of not branching cassandra-5.1 and/or naming a
preview release something other than 5.1-alpha1.
But… the codebases and release process (and upgrade tests) do not currently
support releases with qualifiers that are not alpha, beta, or rc. We can
add a preview qualifier
Thanks everyone! I have updated CASSANDRA-18941 with PRs to each branch,
i.e. cassandra-4.0, cassandra-4.1, cassandra-5.0 and cassandra-trunk.
- Yifan
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 7:00 AM Doug Rohrer wrote:
> +1 (nb) - wiłl be nice for the analytics writer to be able to size
> SSTables appropriately
I am surprised this needs to be said, but - especially for long-running CEPs - you must involve yourself early, and certainly within some reasonable time of being notified the work is ready for broader input and review. In this case, more than six months ago.
This isn’t the first time this has hap
I have spoken privately with Ekaterina, and to clear up some possible ambiguity: I realise nobody has demanded a delay to this work to conduct additional reviews; a couple of folk have however said they would prefer one.
My point is that, as a community, we need to work on ensuring folk that care
I closed 18775 as it did not seem reasonable after discussions here. I
have been working on 16565 and have a pull request [1] and an experimental
suite to show the differences. [2]
[1] https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/2842
[2] https://github.com/Aiven-Labs/compare_oshi_sigar
On Wed, Oc
17 matches
Mail list logo
