+1 as well. One thing to note, many times when i create a ticket i don't know the complexity as I just found a bug (most of the time in a system i do not know); so i tend to default to w/e is in the middle. Leaving the field for someone else to classify feels iffy as we need then someone triaging, so not sure what is best to do in these cases; with Intermediate, i feel that once you dig in you may find out it is too easy or too hard and then able to reclassify (though i only see this happening if you upgrade it to Advanced and drop it)
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:42 AM Paulo Motta <pauloricard...@gmail.com> wrote: > Branching out the discussion on the complexity levels from the "Attracting > new contributors" thread so we don't mix up the topics in the same thread. > > I personally think that the "complexity" field is more an indicator/hint > for inexperienced contributors on whether he will be able to work on a > particular task. Veteran contributors will very likely just ignore this > field and work on whatever they like/need. > > For instance, a person that never contributed to the project will look only > into "entry level" tasks. A person who worked on a few "entry level" tasks > will maybe start looking into "intermediate" tasks, but not into "advanced" > tasks. A person who worked on several "intermediate" tasks will become > confident to work on "advanced" tasks. > > On the other end of the spectrum, the veteran contributor will not extract > any value from this field since it is able to gauge the complexity of the > task without this and decide which tasks to work on. > > So, with that in mind I'm +1 in having this 3 tiered level proposed by > Patrick since it's very simple and unambiguous, while providing a lot of > value to new contributors to find out suitable tasks to work on. > > Em ter., 27 de abr. de 2021 às 15:23, Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com> > escreveu: > > > I have to admit, I like those Duke Nukem levels way more than I should. I > > guess when you choose "Damn I'm Good" you get the boss fight to end all > > boss fights. "Benedict has been assigned as a reviewer..." o.O > > > > But seriously folks. :D > > > > I would advocate for a simple tiering system. > > > > Entry Level > > Intermediate > > Advanced > > > > Clearly defined buckets which not only make it easier for the person > > looking at the Jiras, it also makes it easier for whoever is creating or > > triaging the issue. Also, 3 is a magic number. > > > > Patrick > > > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:16 AM Stefan Miklosovic < > > stefan.mikloso...@instaclustr.com> wrote: > > > > > Quake has it like > > > > > > - I Can Win > > > - Bring It On > > > - Hurt Me Plenty > > > - Hardcore > > > - Nightmare! > > > > > > On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 at 19:02, Benedict Elliott Smith > > > <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > I think Duke Nuke'em would be more apt > > > > > > > > - Piece of Cake > > > > - Let's Rock > > > > - Come Get Some > > > > - Damn I'm Good > > > > > > > > On 27/04/2021, 17:57, "Patrick McFadin" <pmcfa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Could always go with Doom difficulty levels: > > > > > > > > > > > > - I'm Too Young to Die - Easy. > > > > - Hurt Me Plenty - Normal. > > > > - Ultra-Violence - Hard. > > > > - Nightmare - Very Hard. > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 9:50 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > > bened...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Perhaps we could replace both Complexity and Difficulty with > e.g. > > > > > Experience? > > > > > > > > > > Newcomer > > > > > Learner > > > > > Contributor > > > > > Experienced > > > > > Veteran > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I like it. I don't really like segregating the > > > community into > > > > > buckets like this. But it is perhaps more intuitive than > > > complexity, while > > > > > encoding a more objective concept of difficulty. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 27/04/2021, 17:33, "Paulo Motta" <pauloricard...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I (wrongly) assumed this proposal would be fairly > > > uncontroversial so I > > > > > brought up within this related thread but given there is > some > > > > > divergence, I > > > > > retract the suggestion for now and will bring it on its own > > > thread > > > > > later so > > > > > we don't go too far away from the original, and more > > > important, topic > > > > > which > > > > > is how to attract and retain new contributors to the > project. > > > > > > > > > > Em ter., 27 de abr. de 2021 às 13:08, Benedict Elliott > Smith > > < > > > > > bened...@apache.org> escreveu: > > > > > > > > > > > What you are describing to me are difficulty levels, > > whereas > > > this > > > > > field > > > > > > tries to measure complexity. The difference is that while > > > both are > > > > > > subjective, difficulty is relatively more so. This may > lead > > > people to > > > > > > assign difficulty based on their own perception (which is > > > very > > > > > subjective), > > > > > > rather than the scope of the problem (which is still > > > subjective, but > > > > > less > > > > > > so). > > > > > > > > > > > > We can bike-shed the names or the definitions all we > like, > > > but we > > > > > need > > > > > > some separate text to elaborate the intended meaning, > else > > > we'll all > > > > > mean > > > > > > and encode different things. > > > > > > > > > > > > I also don't personally think Hard or Very Hard are > > > descriptive. By > > > > > > comparison, Byzantine is a word that not only crops up in > > > distributed > > > > > > systems to mean involving many parties (i.e. in this case > > > many > > > > > subsystems), > > > > > > but is widely used in English to mean "intricately > > involved" > > > with > > > > > > connotations of labyrinthine, i.e. easy to get lost > doing, > > > or easy to > > > > > > misunderstand. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm definitely open to improving the terminology, but we > > did > > > bike > > > > > shed > > > > > > this all only a year or so ago I think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 27/04/2021, 16:20, "Paulo Motta" < > > > pauloricard...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for bringing the definitions and historical > > > context > > > > > Benedict. > > > > > > Agreed > > > > > > to not attach difficulties to time to complete a > task. > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that the complexity types need explanation > or > > > reading > > > > > > documentation is precisely the issue I’m trying to > > solve > > > by > > > > > using more > > > > > > straightforward and unambiguous terms (as much as > > > possible). > > > > > > > > > > > > So I propose the following levels instead. > > > > > > - Beginner (current LHF for people who have never > > > submitted a > > > > > patch > > > > > > (ie. > > > > > > trivial doc changes or minor test fixes)) > > > > > > - Easy (current LHF for people who have submitted at > > > least a > > > > > couple of > > > > > > patches (ie. add parameter to existing tool)) > > > > > > - Intermediate (current normal) > > > > > > - Hard (current Challenging) > > > > > > - Very Hard (current Byzantine) > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think. > > > > > > > > > > > > Em ter., 27 de abr. de 2021 às 11:44, Benedict > Elliott > > > Smith < > > > > > > bened...@apache.org> escreveu: > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you're wondering, they're documented: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/JIRA+Workflow+Proposals > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Impossible was introduced to take the place of > "pony" > > > - which > > > > > was > > > > > > > genuinely deployed on occasion, but I agree it's > > > redundant as > > > > > nobody > > > > > > > proposes things like that anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Challenging and Byzantine are useful distinctions > > IMO, > > > but I'm > > > > > open > > > > > > to > > > > > > > relabelling them. Levels of difficulty do not > cleanly > > > map to > > > > > time > > > > > > involved, > > > > > > > however. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The project literally never used Easy in the past, > > but > > > perhaps > > > > > you > > > > > > can > > > > > > > bring about the necessary change to do so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 27/04/2021, 15:32, "Paulo Motta" < > > > pauloricard...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since this is a related topic, I'd like to > open a > > > small > > > > > > parenthesis to > > > > > > > throw out a proposal for improving the > semantics > > > of our > > > > > JIRA > > > > > > > "complexity" > > > > > > > field, which currently has the following > levels: > > > > > > > * Low Hanging Fruit (overall easy tasks for new > > or > > > existing > > > > > > > contributors) > > > > > > > * Normal (? this is the most misleading one > since > > > it > > > > > currently > > > > > > ranges > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > very simple tasks to nearly complex tasks) > > > > > > > * Challenging > > > > > > > * Byzantine (the difference between > challenging, > > > byzantine > > > > > and > > > > > > > impossible > > > > > > > tasks is blurry/unclear to me) > > > > > > > * Impossible (not clear to me what's the > purpose > > of > > > > > filling a > > > > > > task > > > > > > > that is > > > > > > > impossible to do? I think we can just close the > > > ticket as > > > > > invalid > > > > > > > during > > > > > > > triage without setting complexity.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose the following levels instead: > > > > > > > * Low Hanging Fruit (I think we should even > > rename > > > this to > > > > > > "Beginner", > > > > > > > since the LHF term is not very well known by > > > outsiders and > > > > > > non-native > > > > > > > English speakers) : easy tasks for who never > > > contributed > > > > > to the > > > > > > > project. > > > > > > > * Easy : easy tasks for those who have some > basic > > > > > familiarity > > > > > > with the > > > > > > > project (contributed at least 2-5 LHF). > > > > > > > * Intermediate : tasks with intermediate > > > complexity, can > > > > > be done > > > > > > in > > > > > > > under a > > > > > > > month. > > > > > > > * Challenging : multi-month effort task. > > > > > > > (no need for byzantine and impossible > complexity > > > levels > > > > > since > > > > > > they > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > add any value) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you prefer I can open a new thread with this > > > proposal > > > > > so we > > > > > > can > > > > > > > focus on > > > > > > > initiatives to attract contributors - but I > think > > > having > > > > > clear > > > > > > > guidelines > > > > > > > on the meaning of task's complexities will help > > to > > > better > > > > > > delineate > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > tasks are suitable for new contributors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Em ter., 27 de abr. de 2021 às 11:25, Joshua > > > McKenzie < > > > > > > > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > > > > > escreveu: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Updating the boot camp material for 4.0 and > > > having it > > > > > > integrated in > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > the official docs ( > > > > > > > > https://cassandra.apache.org/doc/latest/development/ > > ) > > > > > > > > would likely be a valuable, if expensive, > > > exercise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Think this is the slideshare link from the > 2014 > > > boot > > > > > camp; > > > > > > could > > > > > > > build off > > > > > > > > this as the bones are still the same. > > > > > > > > https://www.slideshare.net/joshmckenzie/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:08 AM Paulo Motta > < > > > > > > > pauloricard...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bootcamp is a great effort, but I think in > > > terms of > > > > > priority > > > > > > > ensuring > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > LHF tickets are properly described (well > > > scoped, good > > > > > ticket > > > > > > > description > > > > > > > > > etc) and given proper attention and > > mentorship > > > to > > > > > ensure it > > > > > > goes > > > > > > > through > > > > > > > > > the finish line is a great first step and > > will > > > > > significantly > > > > > > > reduce the > > > > > > > > > barrier to contribution. Once we have this > > > initial > > > > > pipeline > > > > > > working > > > > > > > > > smoothly, I think promoting a bootcamp > would > > > be a great > > > > > > second > > > > > > > step, > > > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > > the bootcamp can be much more efficient if > > the > > > > > participants > > > > > > have > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > some basic level of familiarity with the > > > project and > > > > > can > > > > > > start > > > > > > > working > > > > > > > > on a > > > > > > > > > bit more involved tasks ("Easy" complexity) > > > tasks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Em ter., 27 de abr. de 2021 às 10:50, > > Benjamin > > > Lerer < > > > > > > > b.le...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > escreveu: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It really boils down just to a simple > > > "problem" to > > > > > have > > > > > > enough > > > > > > > > > > > committers to look at it over a > > > (preferably) > > > > > shorter > > > > > > period of > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > > > > and make that feedback loop shorter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The review delay is a clear issue. A part > > of > > > the > > > > > problem > > > > > > is that > > > > > > > most > > > > > > > > > > committers are pretty busy (or that there > > > are not > > > > > enough > > > > > > > committers, > > > > > > > > > > depending how you look at it) but another > > > part of the > > > > > > problem is > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > > not have a good visibility on what is > > > currently > > > > > going on > > > > > > with new > > > > > > > > > > contributors. By having a clear view of > > which > > > > > newcomers' > > > > > > tickets > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > stuck > > > > > > > > > > we could also act in a more efficient > way. > > > We are > > > > > currently > > > > > > > doing some > > > > > > > > > > experimentations with Berenguer to have a > > > way of > > > > > tracking > > > > > > those > > > > > > > things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once 4.0 is out of the door, I believe > that > > > some of > > > > > us > > > > > > should > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > have a > > > > > > > > > > bit more time to help out with newcomers' > > > > > > reviews/mentoring. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1, I had a few minor patches before but > > the > > > bootcamp > > > > > > definitely > > > > > > > helped > > > > > > > > > me > > > > > > > > > > > ramp up on the project faster and I > found > > > the > > > > > recorded > > > > > > > material very > > > > > > > > > > useful > > > > > > > > > > > during project onboarding (some of it > is > > > still > > > > > available > > > > > > on > > > > > > > Youtube). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > People have different levels of > experience > > > and they > > > > > will > > > > > > probably > > > > > > > > > approach > > > > > > > > > > the project in a different way but if a > > > bootcamp can > > > > > help > > > > > > to have > > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > > > Paulo, I am willing to do it. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > Of course in this pandemic world the best > > we > > > can > > > > > probably > > > > > > offer > > > > > > > for the > > > > > > > > > > moment is some virtual bootcamp. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le mar. 27 avr. 2021 à 15:34, Paulo > Motta < > > > > > > > pauloricard...@gmail.com> a > > > > > > > > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1, I had a few minor patches before > but > > > the > > > > > bootcamp > > > > > > > definitely > > > > > > > > helped > > > > > > > > > > me > > > > > > > > > > > ramp up on the project faster and I > found > > > the > > > > > recorded > > > > > > > material very > > > > > > > > > > useful > > > > > > > > > > > during project onboarding (some of it > is > > > still > > > > > available > > > > > > on > > > > > > > Youtube). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be beneficial to > > > collocate a > > > > > bootcamp > > > > > > for new > > > > > > > > > > contributors > > > > > > > > > > > together with an annual event such as > > NGCC > > > or > > > > > > > Apachecon/Cassandra > > > > > > > > > Summit > > > > > > > > > > > and also record some of the sessions so > > > they're > > > > > > available for > > > > > > > a wider > > > > > > > > > > > audience after the fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Em ter., 27 de abr. de 2021 às 10:20, > > > Jeremy Hanna > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com> escreveu: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe Paolo started with the > > project > > > through > > > > > a > > > > > > > contributor boot > > > > > > > > > > camp. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also if I remember correctly some of > > the > > > ones > > > > > that > > > > > > were done > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > > > > internal > > > > > > > > > > > > at DataStax and it helped some people > > get > > > > > familiar > > > > > > with the > > > > > > > project > > > > > > > > > who > > > > > > > > > > > > still contribute today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also this would be short recorded > > > introductions > > > > > so they > > > > > > > could be > > > > > > > > > around > > > > > > > > > > > > for viewing and with auto translate > on > > > Google for > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > languages > > > > > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > > > > as Japanese and Mandarin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do like the idea of a periodic > chat. > > I > > > just > > > > > thought > > > > > > some > > > > > > > recorded > > > > > > > > > > > > introductions would help with some of > > > the more > > > > > common > > > > > > things > > > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > “this > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > how the read path works from end to > > end”. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 2021, at 10:14 PM, > > Benedict > > > Elliott > > > > > Smith > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > bened...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that all of the bootcamps > we > > > ran in > > > > > the past > > > > > > > produced > > > > > > > > > > > precisely > > > > > > > > > > > > zero new contributors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if it would be more > > impactful > > > to > > > > > produce > > > > > > slightly > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > permanent content, such as > step-by-step > > > guides to > > > > > > producing a > > > > > > > > simple > > > > > > > > > > > patch > > > > > > > > > > > > for some subsystem. Perhaps if people > > > want to, a > > > > > > recording > > > > > > > could be > > > > > > > > > > > created > > > > > > > > > > > > of going through that guide as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, if there are new > > > contributors > > > > > actively > > > > > > trying to > > > > > > > > > > > participate, > > > > > > > > > > > > organising a periodic group chat to > > talk > > > through > > > > > one > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > issues > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > they may be working on together as a > > > group with > > > > > an > > > > > > active > > > > > > > > contributor > > > > > > > > > > > might > > > > > > > > > > > > make sense, and be more targeted in > > > focus? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 27/04/2021, 12:45, "Manish G" < > > > > > > > manish.c.ghildi...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Contributor bootcamps can really > > > help new > > > > > people > > > > > > like > > > > > > > me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 5:08 PM > > > Jeremy Hanna > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> One thing we've done in the past > is > > > > > contributor > > > > > > bootcamps > > > > > > > along > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the new contributor guide and the > > LHF > > > > > complexity > > > > > > tickets. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, I > > > > > > > > > > > > >> don't know that the contributor > > > bootcamps > > > > > were ever > > > > > > > recorded. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Presentations were done to > introduce > > > people > > > > > to the > > > > > > > codebase > > > > > > > > > > generally > > > > > > > > > > > (I > > > > > > > > > > > > >> think Gary did this at one point) > as > > > well as > > > > > > specific > > > > > > > parts of > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > >> codebase, such as compaction. > What > > > if we > > > > > broke up > > > > > > the > > > > > > > codebase > > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > > > > >> categories and people could > > volunteer > > > to do a > > > > > short > > > > > > > introduction > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > >> part of the codebase in the form > of > > a > > > video > > > > > > screenshare. > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > > > > > >> this would take the place of > > mentoring > > > > > someone, but > > > > > > if we > > > > > > > had > > > > > > > > > > > > introductions > > > > > > > > > > > > >> to different parts of the > codebase, > > I > > > think > > > > > it would > > > > > > > lower the > > > > > > > > bar > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > >> interested contributors and scale > > the > > > existing > > > > > > group more > > > > > > > > easily. > > > > > > > > > > > > Besides > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the codebase itself, we could also > > > introduce > > > > > things > > > > > > like > > > > > > > CI > > > > > > > > > > practices > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > >> testing or documentation. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Apr 24, 2021, at 12:49 AM, > > > Benjamin > > > > > Lerer < > > > > > > > > ble...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hi Everybody,The Apache Cassandra > > > project > > > > > always > > > > > > had some > > > > > > > > issues > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> attract and retain new > > contributors. > > > I think > > > > > it > > > > > > would be > > > > > > > great > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > change > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> this.According to the "How to > > > Attract New > > > > > > Contributors" > > > > > > > blog > > > > > > > > > post ( > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/how-attract-new-contributors) > > > > > > > > > > having > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > >> good > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> onboarding process is a critical > > > part. How to > > > > > > contribute > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > >> obvious > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> and contributing should be as > easy > > as > > > > > possible for > > > > > > all > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > > > > >> types > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> of contributions: code, > > > documentation, > > > > > web-site or > > > > > > help > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > CI > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> infrastructure.I would love to > hear > > > about > > > > > your > > > > > > ideas on > > > > > > > how we > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > >> improve > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> things.If you are new in the > > > community, do > > > > > not > > > > > > hesitate > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > share > > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> experience and your suggestions > on > > > what we > > > > > can do > > > > > > to > > > > > > > make it > > > > > > > > > easier > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > >> you > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to contribute. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > > > > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > > > > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > > > > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > > > > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > > > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > > > > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > > > >
