I asked this previously when a similar message came through, with a similar response.
planetcassandra seems to have it “right”, in that stable=2.0, development=2.1, whereas the apache site says stable is 2.1. “Right” in they assume latest minor version is development. Why not have the apache site do the same? That’s just my lowly non-contributing opinion though. Jason From: Andrew [mailto:redmu...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 8:26 PM To: Robert Coli; user@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: run cassandra on a small instance Robert, Let me know if I’m off base about this—but I feel like I see a lot of posts that are like this (i.e., use this arbitrary version, not this other arbitrary version). Why are releases going out if they’re “broken”? This seems like a very confusing way for new (and existing) users to approach versions... Andrew On February 18, 2015 at 5:16:27 PM, Robert Coli (rc...@eventbrite.com<mailto:rc...@eventbrite.com>) wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Tim Dunphy <bluethu...@gmail.com<mailto:bluethu...@gmail.com>> wrote: I'm attempting to run Cassandra 2.1.2 on a smallish 2.GB<http://2.GB> ram instance over at Digital Ocean. It's a CentOS 7 host. 2.1.2 is IMO broken and should not be used for any purpose. Use 2.1.1 or 2.1.3. https://engineering.eventbrite.com/what-version-of-cassandra-should-i-run/ =Rob
