Re: [VOTE] Accept java-driver

+1 -- Sylvain On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 8:43 PM Jon Haddad wrote: > +1 > > > On 2023/10/03 04:52:47 Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > The donation of the java-driver is ready for its IP Clearance vote. > > https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/cassandra-java-driver.html > > > > The SGA has been sent

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Fwiw, it makes sense to me to talk about CQL syntax evolution separately. It's pretty clear to me that we _can_ extend CQL to make sure of a general purpose transaction mechanism, so I don't think deciding if we want a general purpose transaction mechanism has to depend on deciding on the syntax.

Re: Welcome Jordan West, David Capwell, Zhao Yang and Ekaterina Dimitrova as Cassandra committers

Congratulations to all of you. Well deserved. -- Sylvain On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 12:27 AM Sumanth Pasupuleti < sumanth.pasupuleti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hearty congratulations everyone!! > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:53 PM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > Congrats everyone! Great to see new

Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-12126: LWTs correcteness and performance

I hope I haven't misread this, but it appears we've reached a kind of consensus for committing the fix, so I went ahead and did it. I added a NEWS entry that I hope is clear (and points to the flag that disables the fix if someone wants to go that route), but any committers can feel free to

Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-12126: LWTs correcteness and performance

Regarding option #4, I'll remark that experience tends to suggest users don't consistently read the `NEWS.txt` file on upgrade, so option #4 will likely essentially mean "LWT has a correctness issue, but once it broke your data enough that you'll notice, you'll be able to dig the proper flag to

Re: Merge implementation details

If you want something precise, I'm afraid you'll have to go to the source code. The code to merge "cells" (internally, a "cell" corresponds pretty much to the value of specific column in a specific row, though a non-frozen collection column is actually multiple cells) is in `Cells#reconcile` at:

Re: [DISCUSS] Change style guide to recommend use of @Override

+1 -- Sylvain On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 10:21 AM Sam Tunnicliffe wrote: > +1 > > > On 2 Sep 2020, at 09:03, Benjamin Lerer > wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 5:36 AM Berenguer Blasi > > > wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> On 2/9/20 5:09, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > >>> +1 > >>>

Re: [DISCUSS] When to branch 4.0

Fwiw, I agree with that POV in general (that it's probably beneficial on balance to branch now/soonish for the reasonings Josh mentioned). -- Sylvain On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 3:43 PM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > As we close on cutting beta1, a new consequence of our release lifecycle is > becoming

Re: [DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-13994

There appears to be a rather important misunderstanding here. Compact storage *is removed* from 4.0, it has been since at least CASSANDRA-10857 which prevented 4.0 to start if any compact tables existed. This was done 2.5+ years ago and is explicitly indicated in the NEWS file since then. The

Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)

+1 -- Sylvain On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM Benjamin Lerer wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:54 AM Marcus Eriksson > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > > On 22 June 2020 at 08:37:39, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apache.org) wrote: > > > > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20 > > > - pmc votes

Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc

+1 (binding) -- Sylvain On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:58 PM Benjamin Lerer wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:49 PM Marcus Eriksson > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > > On 17 June 2020 at 12:40:38, Sam Tunnicliffe (s...@beobal.com) wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > On 17 Jun

Re: Proof of concept for Cassandra docs conversion

Agreed the navigation is nicer. The content rst conversion is however far from perfect, especially in the CQL parts. The grammar parts are all broken, most tables are really weird (example: https://polandll.github.io/site/ASCIIDOC_POC/4.0/cassandra/cql/types.html) and we lost almost all linking

Re: [DISCUSS] Documentation donation

x.adoc > [6] http://github.com/thelastpickle/tlp-cluster > [7] https://asciidoctor.org/docs/asciidoc-syntax-quick-reference/ > [8] https://docutils.sourceforge.io/docs/user/rst/quickref.html#tables > [9] https://asciidoctor.org/docs/asciidoc-syntax-quick-reference/#tables > [10] https://issues

Re: [DISCUSS] Documentation donation

I do worry Markdown might not be a great choice. It's definitively most well know by a large margin, and that's a good, but it's also a bit limited (even with common extensions). It's perfect for comments, README or even somewhat informal docs, but we're talking the fairly large (and meant to

Re: DataStax Driver Donation to Apache Cassandra Project

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 5:10 PM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > > > If we're talking day to day > > maintenance, so the bulk of the work really, then I feel rather confident > > saying that you are wrong, > > You're confidently responding to something I wasn't trying to say. :) I may > not have

Re: DataStax Driver Donation to Apache Cassandra Project

:42 PM Joshua McKenzie > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > re: ML noise, how hard would it be to filter out JIRA updates > > w/component > > > > "Drivers"? Or from JIRA queries? > > > > > > > > For governance, I see it cutting both ways. If we have two sepa

Re: DataStax Driver Donation to Apache Cassandra Project

Fwiw, I agree with the concerns raised by Benedict, and think we should carefully think about how this is handled. Which isn't not a rejection of the donation in any way. Drivers are not small projects, and the majority of their day to day maintenance is unrelated to the server (and the reverse

Re: [DISCUSS] Documentation donation

> Are there any questions or concerns about this donation? Getting substantial contributions to the documentation is a great thing to me in principle. My main question was around the exact form this donation would take since the project has already lots of documentation. And I was about to

Re: [VOTE] Change Jira Workflow

+1 -- Sylvain On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:34 AM Oleksandr Petrov wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 7:12 PM Nate McCall wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 4:19 AM Benedict Elliott Smith > > wrote: > > > > > > I propose these changes < >

Re: Revisit the proposal to use github PR

Fwiw, I personally find it very useful to have all discussion, review comments included, in the same place (namely JIRA, since for better or worse, that's what we use for tracking tickets). Typically, that means everything gets consistently pushed to the commits@ mailing list, which I find

Re: JIRA Workflow Proposals

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 7:14 PM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > Ok, so feel free to keep your votes coming, but we have a pretty clear > majority for everything except Wish - which presently stands at -1 (maybe > -2 if Sylvain updates his vote). > Yes, I did meant -1 on the wish issue if that

Re: JIRA Workflow Proposals

1: D C E B A (with a particularly strong feeling against A) 2: A B C 3: A (but don't mind much overall) 4: Don't mind (I neither particularly like 'wish' as a priority or issue type really) -- Sylvain On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:42 PM Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote: > 1. C, D, A, B, E > 2. B, C, A >

Re: JIRA Workflow Proposals

t some > of these other discussions moving. > > No doubt we’ll do a second poll once the first one concludes. Please, > everyone, keep your first poll answers coming! > > > On 5 Dec 2018, at 09:50, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > > > > Thanks for all those that contributed to the propo

Re: JIRA Workflow Proposals

Thanks for all those that contributed to the proposal, and specifically to Benedict for leading the discussion. On the general proposal, I suspect there is a few details we may have to tweak going forward, but hard to be sure before trying and as I do think it's progress, I'm personally happy to

Re: Implicit Casts for Arithmetic Operators

gt; of the project. > > 2) I agree that which standard we choose to follow, and why we follow > it, are both relevant questions > > > > > > > >> On 22 Nov 2018, at 11:56, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:51 AM Bene

Re: Implicit Casts for Arithmetic Operators

to standards for all our arithmetic before your suggestion a vote on it might be warranted. -- Sylvain > > On 22 Nov 2018, at 09:26, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > > > > I'm not saying "let's not do this no matter what and ever fix technical > > debt", nor am I fearing

Re: Implicit Casts for Arithmetic Operators

ing this upfront a great deal more often. Doing it > > retrospectively sucks, but in my opinion it's a bad reason to bind > > ourselves to whatever made it in. > > > > Do we anywhere define the principles of our current behaviour? I > couldn’t > > find it. &g

Re: Implicit Casts for Arithmetic Operators

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 5:02 PM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > FWIW, my meaning of arithmetic in this context extends to any features we > have already released (such as aggregates, and perhaps other built-in > functions) that operate on the same domain. We should be consistent, after > all. >

Re: CASSANDRA-13241 lower default chunk_length_in_kb

Fwiw, as much as I agree this is a change worth doing in general, I do am -0 for 4.0. Both the "compact sequencing" and the change of default really. We're closing on 2 months within the freeze, and for me a freeze do include not changing defaults, because changing default ideally imply a decent

Re: [VOTE] Development Approach for Apache Cassandra Management process

That's probably a stupid question, and excuse me if it is, but what does those votes on the dev mailing list even mean? How do you count votes at the end? Just by counting all votes cast, irregardless of whomever cast it? Or are we intending to only count PMC members, or maybe committers votes?

Re: [VOTE] Accept GoCQL driver donation and begin incubation process

-0 The project seems to have a hard time getting on top of reviewing his backlog of 'patch available' issues, so that I'm skeptical adopting more code to maintain is the thing the project needs the most right now. Besides, I'm also generally skeptical that augmenting the scope of a project makes

Re: UDF

I'm +1 with this solution going in 4.0. That said, this make we realize that through this dependency we've ended up exposing (publicly) a bit too much to UDF. Namely, all we really need/want to expose for UDF is the "value" classes (UDTValue, TupleValue, Duration and LocalDate) and the types

Re: Evolving the client protocol

> > > Those were just given as examples. Each would be discussed on its own, > assuming we are able to find a way to cooperate. > > > These are relatively simple and it wouldn't be hard for use to patch > Cassandra. But I want to find a way to make more complicated protocol > changes where it

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

ing, so people may continue working on there pet ticket even after freeze. But we can at least, as a project, make it clear what kind of contributions are "preferred" at any given time. > > On Apr 12, 2018, at 02:13, Sylvain Lebresne <lebre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >&

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

> > I agree there's little point freezing if we can't even test the system > properly. > I'll mention that I really don't follow the logic of such claim. Why can't we fix the testing of the system after freezing? In fact, isn't the whole point of freezing agreeing that it's high time to fix

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

I feel this discussion is starting to go in every directions and getting farther away from any decision/progress so I'll attempt to summarize what I hear, where I stand and *more importantly*, why. So as far as "what do we do for 4.0", I hear it boil down to 3 options: 1) we freeze June 1. It

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:35 AM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > Seriously, what's the rush to branch? Do we all love merging so much we > want to do a few more times just for the sake of merging? If nothing > diverges, there's nothing gained from the branch, and if it did diverge, we >

Re: Paying off tech debt and correctly naming things

I really don't think anyone has been recently against such renaming, and in fact, a _lot_ of renaming *has* already happen over time. The problem, as you carefully noted, is that it's such a big task that there is still a lot to do. Anyway, I've yet to see a patch renaming things to match the CQL

Re: Proposal to retroactively mark materialized views experimental

For the record, in case I was unclear, it was never my intention to suggest that we shouldn't warn about MVs: I would agree that we still should and I'm happy that we do. I would also agree that the remaining caveats and limitations should be more clearly documented. But, I kind of got the

Re: Proposal to retroactively mark materialized views experimental

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote: > There are a couple compromise options here: > > a) Introduce the flag (enalbe_experimental_features, or maybe one per > experimental feature), set it to ‘false’ in the yaml, but have the default be > ‘true’. So that

Re: Integrating vendor-specific code and developing plugins

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Jason Brown wrote: > Hey all, > > I'm on-board with what Rei is saying. I think we should be open to, and > encourage, other platforms/architectures for integration. Of course, it > will come down to specific maintainers/committers to do

Re: [VOTE] self-assignment of jira tickets

+1 On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Benjamin Lerer wrote: > Non binding +1 > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Jonathan Haddad > wrote: > > > Non binding +1 > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 7:22 AM Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > > > > +1

Re: Approximate 4.0 timeframe

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Shashank Joshi < shashank.jo...@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Is there a rough idea of when 4.0 might be released ? No, there isn't. > Also, once that happens and 2.1 is no longer supported in the community, > does that mean that there will be no fixes

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.17

+1 On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Brandon Williams wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Michael Shuler > wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.1.17. > > > > sha1: 943db2488c8b62e1fbe03b132102f0e579c9ae17 > > Git:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.2.9

+1 On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:22 AM, Brandon Williams wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Michael Shuler > wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.9. > > > > sha1: 70a08f1c35091a36f7d9cc4816259210c2185267 > > Git:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.10 (Take 4)

Fyi, I just committed CASSANDRA-13025 so it's ready for a re-roll as far as I can tell. On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Michael Shuler wrote: > This vote is being failed for CASSANDRA-13058 (committed after tentative > tag) and CASSANDRA-13025 (patch available). > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.10 (Take 4)

e-roll. It's ready for review if someone's interested. > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 4:26 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com> > wrote: > > I'm a bit sorry about it, but I'm kind of -1 on the account of > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13025. It's a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.10 (Take 4)

I'm a bit sorry about it, but I'm kind of -1 on the account of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13025. It's a genuine regression during upgrade that we should really fix before it's released in the wild. I apologize for not having bump the priority on this ticket sooner but I think

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.10

+1 On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Nate McCall wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:12 AM, Michael Shuler > wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.10. > > > > sha1: 817ba038783212b716f6981b26c8348ffdc92f59 > > Git: > >

Re: A home for 4.0

hopefully nobody was inconvenienced). Again, my bad, but we should be good to go now. On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com> wrote: > So, this is done now and I've renamed the version on trunk to 4.0, so be > sure to commit/merge to 3.X before going to tr

Re: A home for 4.0

So, this is done now and I've renamed the version on trunk to 4.0, so be sure to commit/merge to 3.X before going to trunk from now on. On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com> wrote: > As there has been no strong objection, I'm going to proceed a

Re: A home for 4.0

ich...@pbandjelly.org> wrote: > I foresee many arithmetic errors with 3.X.. :) > > -- > Michael > > On 09/27/2016 05:18 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > > We have a number of tickets that we now have to wait on 4.0 due to > needing a > > messaging protocol change or majo

A home for 4.0

-> trunk (future 4.0) Any strong objection to me creating that branch? Sylvain Lebresne

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.8

+1 On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 3:03 AM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > +1 > > On 2016-09-26 07:52 (-0700), Michael Shuler > wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.8. > > > > sha1: ce609d19fd130e16184d9e6d37ffee4a1ebad607 > > Git: > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.9

+1 On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 3:03 AM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > +1 > > On 2016-09-26 08:12 (-0700), Michael Shuler > wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.9. > > > > sha1: c1fa21458777b51a9b21795330ed6f298103b436 > > Git: > >

Re: Proposal - 3.5.1

release stable releases from trunk directly if we have proven we're there. > > On September 16, 2016 at 9:04:03 AM, Sylvain Lebresne ( > sylv...@datastax.com) wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> > wrote: > > > > >

Re: Proposal - 3.5.1

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Jonathan Haddad wrote: > > This is a different mentality from having a "features" branch, where it's > implied that at times it's acceptable that it not be stable. I absolutely never implied that, though I willingly admit my choice of branch

Re: Proposal - 3.5.1

As probably pretty much everyone at this point, I agree the tick-tock experiment isn't working as well as it should and that it's probably worth course correcting. I happen to have been thinking about this quite a bit already as it turns out so I'm going to share my reasoning and suggestion below,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.9

+1 On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Sam Tunnicliffe wrote: > +1 > > On 15 Sep 2016 19:58, "Jake Luciani" wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.9. > > > > sha1: d600f51ee1a3eb7b30ce3c409129567b70c22012 > > Git: > >

Re: Github pull requests

Sorry for being obtuse but what do we win exactly? The way we're currently working is that a lot of ticket spans 2 or more branches so that most people currently submit patches by attaching link to the relevant branches (one for each version we should commit to) as well as links to the CI results

Re: [VOTE RESULT] Release Apache Cassandra 3.8

lendar entirely. Fix or revert the > issue > >> eventually, and release 3.8 then. Have 3.9 and 3.0.9 out at whatever > time > >> we decide to, and go back to monthly cycles from there on. > >> > >> TBH I don’t think anybody is even going to notice, o

Re: Blockers for 4.0

en, and while tick-tock has introduced > regularity wrt release dates, there's not much that shapes what goes in > those releases. > > My two cents, > > -Jason > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com> > wrote: > > >

Re: State of Unit tests (1 out of 100 passes in trunk)

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Jeremiah D Jordan < jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Josh, add me to the "test fixers" queue, as well. However, I think the > > authors of patches that break the build should also be on the hook for > > fixing problems, as well. > > +1 I have always been a

Re: Blockers for 4.0

s when, and while tick-tock has introduced > regularity wrt release dates, there's not much that shapes what goes in > those releases. > > My two cents, > > -Jason > > > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com> > wrote: &

Re: Blockers for 4.0

My very own preference would be to actually focus on making 4.0 the release where have enough mechanism in place that no further ticket _have to_ wait for a major. That means at least making sure CASSANDRA-12042 makes it in, adding some proper versioning of schemas and CASSANDRA-8110. If we had

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.8

> Also, I know we’ve been easy on -1s when voting on releases, but I want > to > > remind people in general that release votes can not be vetoed and only > > require a majority of binding votes, > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes > > &

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.8

Sorry but I'm (binding) -1 on this because of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12236. I disagree that knowingly releasing a version that will temporarily break in-flight queries during upgrade, even if it's for a very short time-frame until re-connection, is ok. I'll note in

Re: Reminder: critical fixes only in 2.1

Definitively agrees that CASSANDRA-10433 and CASSANDRA-12030 aren't critical. In fact, they are both marked as "improvements" and "minor". I'm to blame for their commit, so mea culpa. But to my defense, I've long advocated for being stricter on sticking to critical-only fixes on old releases and

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.2.7

+1 On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote: > +1 > > -- > AY > > On 1 July 2016 at 15:59:02, Jake Luciani (j...@apache.org) wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.7. > > sha1: 092054170ec3daf92ec494a0db295037d3563229 > Git: > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.7

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:45 PM, James Carman wrote: > How are you guys verifying these releases so fast? Do you have verification > scripts or something? > Because we're trying to release on a fixed cadence if possible, we're freezing releases for testing in advance

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.7

+1 On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.7. > > sha1: 040ac666ac5cdf9cd0a01a845f2ea0af3a81a08b > Git: > > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.7-tentative >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.7

+1 On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.7. > > sha1: 6815dc970565e6cd1e0169b5379f37da7a5a8a32 > Git: > > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.7-tentative > Artifacts:

Re: Java Driver 3.0 for Apache Cassandra - Documentation Outdated?

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Chris Mattmann wrote: > Excellent, why am I the first person to ask that, and why didn’t > a PMC member point that out right away and why did it take me asking > to point to the Apache docs. > > This is what I am talking about in terms of the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.6 (Attempt #2)

+1 On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Robert Stupp wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > — > Robert Stupp > @snazy > > On Jun 1, 2016, at 19:30, Jake Luciani wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.6. > > sha1:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.6

+1 On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.6. > > > > sha1: c17cbe1875a974a00822ffbfad716abde363c8da > > Git: > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.6

+1 On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.6. > > > > sha1: 52447873a361647a5e80c547adea9cf5ee85254a > > Git: > > > > >

Re: [Proposal] Mandatory comments

> When I'm reading code i look for comments to help me understand key points, > points that aren't self-evident. If we institute a boilerplate "comment > everything" rule then I lose that signpost. Frankly, I don't love the idea of somewhat limiting comments on purpose so the sheer presence of a

Re: [Proposal] Mandatory comments

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:57 PM, Eric Evans <john.eric.ev...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com> > wrote: > > Looking forward to other's opinions and feedbacks on this proposal. > > We might want to l

Re: [Proposal] Mandatory comments

code by itself, but the optimistic in me hopes that if we get more consistent quality of comments in new code, our inconfort with the lack of comments in old code will grow and we'll end up fixing it naturally over time. -- Sylvain > > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Sylvain Lebres

[Proposal] Mandatory comments

There could be disagreement on this, but I think that we are in general not very good at commenting Cassandra code and I would suggest that we make a collective effort to improve on this. And to help with that goal, I would like to suggest that we add the following rule to our code style guide

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.2.6

+1 On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.6. > > > > sha1: 37f63ecc5d3b36fc115fd7ae98e4fc1f4bc2d1d6 > > Git: > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.14

+1 On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.1.14. > > > > sha1: 209ebd380b641c4f065e9687186f546f8a50b242 > > Git: > > > > >

Re: Lightweight transaction for read and update

No, this is currently not possible. This is something that is likely technically feasible with the LWT mechanism but it is not currently supported (and, for info, is not on anyone short term todo list as far as I know). Sorry. On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Priyanka Gugale

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.4

+1 On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Josh McKenzie wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.4. > > > > sha1: 70649a8d65825144fcdbde136d9b6354ef1fb911 > > Git: > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.4

+1 On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Josh McKenzie wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:46 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.4. > > > > sha1: 6328590808ff16fd026fd80cb28635d4313b8cc8 > > Git: > > > > >

Re: RandomPartitioner and new token allocation algorithm

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Romain Hardouin wrote: > I targeted the dev list because I would like to know why the developer > (patch by branimir and reviewed by benedict) mentions "Only supported with > the Murmur3Partitioner" whereas his patch uses IPartitioner

Re: A short guid on how to contribute patches to Cassandra

Can you put it on the current wiki since we don't really know when (and if) we'll be able to move the wiki to confluence? It would be good to have a proper url to point people to if need be. On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote: > Once we have a new wiki,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.3

+1 On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Brandon Williams wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.3. > > > > sha1: b9bdd9ec648ad42d88b1377fe0e1e4ff3d162a91 > > Git: > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.3

+1 On Feb 6, 2016 06:15, "Brandon Williams" wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.3. > > > > sha1: 5669c6967bbdd540f27aeebf5a2c258bc4defbe3 > > Git: > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.2.5

+1 On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.5. > > sha1: dd76858c7652541c7b137323f7b9e154686d6fba > Git: > > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.2.5-tentative >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.13

+1 On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Jason Brown wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Jake Luciani wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.1.13. > > > > sha1: d5b6d1b634f69709d2b3caa17cba52696ed2033d > > Git: > > > > >

Re: EOL for COMPACT STORAGE

No, there is no such plan. On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Anuj Wadehra wrote: > I would appreciate if someone from Dev team could reply? > ThanksAnuj > > Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android > > On Sun, 31 Jan, 2016 at 7:23 pm, Anuj Wadehra > wrote:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.2.1

+1 On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Gary Dusbabek wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.2.1. > > > > sha1: 2ac95bd6c5699a605e6f4256cb17b016c99e6dda > > Git: > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.1.1

+1 On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Josh McKenzie wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.1.1. > > > > sha1: 8347d37716d318956591ab7d5688774a083e5bfb > > Git: > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.2

+1 On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Josh McKenzie wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.2. > > > > sha1: 9b655ac181e732e2c489e102d6742cad6f7029e6 > > Git: > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.1

+1 On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.1. > > > > sha1: cf567703db2cc6859731405322f19f55345b5c57 > > Git: > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.1

+1 On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.1. > > > > sha1: e092873728dc88aebc6ee10153b9bd3cd90cd858 > > Git: > > > > >

Re: Aligning Cassandra CQL documentation

Fyi, CASSANDRA-7225 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7225) to basically make cqlsh point to the CQL doc to avoid that kind of inconsistencies/duplicate work as much as possible. > How do we make the changes to the Datastax docs to align them with the other two sets of docs? You

Re: Can't assign issues to myself

Granted. On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Michael Edge wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm trying to assign > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10719?filter=12334050 to > myself but it seems I'm unable to. Is someone able to grant me contributor > permissions or do

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.10

+1 On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Jake Luciani wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.1.10. > > > > sha1: 78f2e7aa01d552454fd4270fee8d600c4433df5c > > Git: > > > > >

  1   2   3   4   5   >