With 14303 in (thanks to Jon), wanted to see if I can get help on 14557 - it makes it further easy to create keyspaces (without having to always mention RF) and provides a way to ensure keyspaces are created with a minimum required RF.
Thanks, Sumanth On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 5:35 PM Vinay Chella <vinaykumar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the responses, I think the summary so far is: committers and > reviewers are positive on reviewing the community tickets mentioned in this > email except for a couple of them that Joshua mentioned, with the caution > of > not disrupting the current testing efforts. > > Thank you, Ariel, for understanding the concerns and helping with reviews. > > Thank you, Jon, for picking up CASSANDRA-14303. > > @Joshua, if you can comment on the tickets that concern you that would be > helpful, and I will take them off from my list to track for 4.0. > > I would like to help drive these tickets to their completion in 4.0 (either > deferred or committed) unless someone has concerns. > > Thanks, > Vinay > > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 6:19 PM Sankalp Kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > We already should be taking correctness and perf changes and I am +1 on > > taking operational tickets. Agree with Josh that the only exception will > be > > if it causes disruption in testing. > > > > I think as a project we should be more open to operational issues as > > having a fork is not ideal. > > > > Regarding time it is taking to review things, I think we should not start > > doing big features post 4.0 but instead review all possible JIRAs first. > > Once we are out of this debt, we should define a process so that we > don’t > > end up in this state. I think this item deserves a separate thread which > we > > can start closer to 4.0 being cut. > > > > > On Nov 23, 2018, at 12:17 AM, Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > Strong +1 on prioritizing community engagement 1st and caution second, > > > though still prioritizing it. I think the right metric for us to > > calibrate > > > around is that "disrupt in-flight testing cycles", i.e. if changes > cause > > > significant rework for people that have already begun testing 4.0, > > probably > > > ok to review and get it in but target 4.0.x. > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:00 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > bened...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > >>> I assume it's obvious to everyone that this should be taken on a > > >>> case-by-case basis. There's at least 2 that were in that list (one of > > >> which > > >>> Marcus bumped off PA) that are potentially big and hairy changes that > > >> would > > >>> disrupt in-flight testing cycles. > > >> > > >> Agreed. I’d prefer we aim to be as permissive as practical, though. > > >> > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> 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 > > > > >
