Hi Ryan,
Thanks for the prompt response.
I am talking about the get method in cassandra.rb
get will call multi_get, which also returns OrderedHash. So how come
calling multi_get will also include the row key? Why doesn't it make
sense to return a row key on a get? I don't understand.
Thanks
On 10 February 2011 18:49, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll restage central artifacts by tommorrow morning. hoping this is the last
take
- Stephen
---
Sent from my Android phone, so random spelling mistakes, random nonsense
words and other nonsense are a direct
I've been uncomfortable with the amount of features I perceive are
going into our maintenance releases for a while now. I thought it
would stop after we committed ourselves to having a more predictable
major release schedule. But getting 0.7.1 out feels like it's taken a
lot more effort than it
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Gary Dusbabek gdusba...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been uncomfortable with the amount of features I perceive are
going into our maintenance releases for a while now. I thought it
would stop after we committed ourselves to having a more predictable
major release
Qualified +1 from me -- I went back and checked the 3 prior 0.7.1
votes, and all of them were canceled because of regressions from the
#1905/#1959/#2058 series, which was a bug fix (make dynamic snitch
actually work) not a new feature. It turned out to be more work to
get all the corner cases
I'm willing to concede that I may have an abnormally conservative
opinion about this. But I wanted to voice my concern in hopes we can
improve the quality and delivery of our maintenance releases.
(speaking now from the perspective of a consumer, disregarding the
implications on development)
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Peter Schuller
peter.schul...@infidyne.com wrote:
For example, from the point of view of the user, I think that
things like CASSANDRA-1992 should preferably result in an almost
immediate bugfix-only release with instructions and impact information
for users.
Thanks Maxim - I'll just go ahead and BCC you and Hentschel and move the
discussion to the dev list.
Based on the comments on 1311 - did you have anything else to add to that -
could we unify around 1016 or 1311 and work on getting that to a general state
of acceptance? Were there any that
+1.
Cassandra has matured a lot lately and more users are relying heavily on it in
production. For those users, including us, stability and predictability becomes
very important.
Not including new and potentially unstable features in maintenance releases is
an easy way to decrease risk at a
Here is my chronology:
- I turned on my current cluster in early December, starting with
about 0.7 RC2 or thereabouts. I ran into a number of problems but was able
to get things more or less ironed out (upgrading to new versions pretty
quickly). Once 0.7.0 was released, I had no problems
+1
I'm also concerned with our lack of regression testing. A lot of this is
done by individual committers firing up EC2 clusters and running basic
sanity checks and workloads. Most of the bugs we are finding pop up under
heavy load.
It would be great if the community could identify and
Honestly, I think we should just mark 1016 a dupe and move forward with
1311: we won't be hurting anyone's feelings, and the implementation from
1016 is: 1. much, much less complete, 2. abandoned.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Jeremy Hanna jeremy.hanna1...@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks Maxim -
As the dude that worked on the 1016 prototype, I agree with this.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Stu Hood stuh...@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, I think we should just mark 1016 a dupe and move forward with
1311: we won't be hurting anyone's feelings, and the implementation from
1016 is: 1.
+1
Passes the distributed tests.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Eric Evans eev...@rackspace.com wrote:
I propose the following for release as 0.7.1.
SVN:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cassandra/branches/cassandra-0.7@r1069461
0.7.1 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans
The
So from here I guess it's a matter of working out the comments/concerns
presented on 1311 and any future discussion sounds like it belongs there.
Like I said, I just wanted to initiate discussion since it had been a while and
the dust from 0.7 had settled. It seems like an incredibly useful
strong unbinding +1 :)
I think that there were several lessons learned in the 0.6.x line about walking
that line. Wrt regression testing, hopefully the distributed tests (thanks Stu
and Kelvin and others!) will act as a core for something like that. I would
imagine that heavy loads can be
16 matches
Mail list logo
