Reading through the history Sankalp posted (I think it was originally posted by
Joey?), I think part of the problem we’re having here is that we’re trying to
solve at least 3 problems with a single solution. Also, I don’t think everyone
has the same goals in mind. The issues we’re trying to
The link to the document is available in the other thread. Comparisons are
available in other thread as well.
> On Sep 12, 2018, at 16:29, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>
>
>> I am hoping all the folks who are saying we should not vote will drive the
>> other thread. Also note that there is
> I am hoping all the folks who are saying we should not vote will drive the
> other thread. Also note that there is consensus about doing a side car but
> no consensus on which approach to take. I hope not deciding which approach
> is not a poison pill for side car!!
Call me pedantic, but I
I am hoping all the folks who are saying we should not vote will drive the
other thread. Also note that there is consensus about doing a side car but
no consensus on which approach to take. I hope not deciding which approach
is not a poison pill for side car!!
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:11 PM
> But I'd like to see a serious investigation of the options -- feature set,
> maturity, maintainer availability, etc -- before making a decision. This
> will take some time, but this is a place where "measure twice, cut once"
> seems like the right approach.
This^ 100%.
I dislike the idea
(Using this thread and not the vote thread intentionally)
For folks talking about vote being rushed. I would use the email from
Joseph to show this is not rushed. There was no email on this thread for 4
months until I pinged.
Dec 2016: Vinay worked with Jon and Alex to try to collaborate on
Hi Joey,
The intention of this vote is to do what you are saying. We
want to see movement on this and not drag it for months. I am happy to drag
it for few more weeks if thats is what we agree on.
Regarding evaluating different options, if we decide on option a, we can
always do that
> I'd like to ask those of you that are +1'ing, are you willing to contribute
> or are you just voting we start an admin tool from scratch because you
> think it'll somehow produce a perfect codebase?
Roopa, Vinay, Sumanth and I are voting as community members (and a
sizeable user) and our
Thanks. :) sleep deprivation is real.
To Ellis' point: "But I'd like to see a serious investigation of the
options "
While we've talked about a lot of things on that email thread, I don't
think we have a distilled view of the gap between current status for these
options and the resources
Congrats on the newborn. I am assuming others also have personal things
going on!!
Also discussion thread is ongoing from April and not last 4 days. If enough
people think it is rushed, we can always revote.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:24 PM Joshua McKenzie
wrote:
> That was four days ago, and I
That was four days ago, and I have a newborn at home. Not a lot of time for
people to respond that have other things going on in life. :)
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:13 PM sankalp kohli
wrote:
> If you think vote is being forced, why not reply to my email on another
> thread when I said we should
If you think vote is being forced, why not reply to my email on another
thread when I said we should vote? Why was the thread dead for months and
someone comes back with a contribution and then people starts talking?
I would have happily waited for few more days!!
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:09
>
> It is important we make progress as we have been discussing this since
> April!!
The discussion was making progress. Just because you want things to happen
faster is no reason to force an early vote.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:04 PM sankalp kohli
wrote:
> Also my vote is same as Jeff. d
I agree that it's premature to pick an option here.
For the record, my bias would be towards option (a) because my experience
is that it's much more productive to start with something that works and
extend it, than try to build a combination of different ideas. Especially
if the latter tends
Also my vote is same as Jeff. d but would slightly prefer b. It is
important we make progress as we have been discussing this since April!!
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:52 PM sankalp kohli
wrote:
> The last email on the thread was 3 days ago and I made it clear days back
> that we should vote on
The last email on the thread was 3 days ago and I made it clear days back
that we should vote on it to make progress. Without this vote, I am not
sure we will make progress.
Many people want to contribute on this and hence we are voting so we can
make progress.
My vote is d
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018
This voting process feels a bit rushed and frankly not well thought out.
In addition to Sylvain's valid points, which you (Sankalp) didn't address
at all, the discussion in the other threads seemed to be ongoing. The last
email you wrote on one of them was asking for additional feedback, that
My +1 was under the assumption that the current maintainer wanted to continue
with the project and would be brought in to do that along with the code.
But my +1 also has no meaning in the ASF meritocracy as I am neither a
committer or a PMC member ;). It just expresses my opinion as a long
No, doesn’t change it. Any code donation has to go through the incubation
process, which is where all the legal stuff about it being donated is handled.
This would be like the dtest repo which was donated a little while back, and
followed this same process.
-Jeremiah
> On Sep 12, 2018, at
In the previous thread we seemed to come to the conclusion it would be
under the same project with same committers/pmc. I don't know if sending it
through incubation changes that?
On Wed., 12 Sep. 2018, 13:03 Jeremy Hanna,
wrote:
> I don’t know if others have this same question, but what does
+1. I do share the same concerns as Sylvain, but I think it's important we
get more driver experience/exposure in the project, as it seems lacking
since datastax moved off, and I don't think this will be something we can
just leave to the userbase to solve.
I'm definitely looking to contribute as
I don’t know if others have this same question, but what does accepting the
gocql driver donation mean? It becomes a full Apache project separate from
Cassandra and there exists a separate set of PMC members and such? Or does it
become part of the Cassandra project itself? From Sylvain and
Hi Sylvain,
I would appreciate if we can give feedback on the
discussion threads and not wait for vote threads. I made it clear in the
discussion thread that we will start a vote!!
Thanks,
Sankalp
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:47 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:41
+1
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:55 PM Jonathan Haddad wrote:
> I'm +0, and I share the same concerns as Sylvain.
>
> For those of you that have +1'ed, are you planning on contributing to the
> driver? Docs, code, QA? It's easy to throw a +1 down to make the driver
> the responsibility of the
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:41 PM Sylvain Lebresne
wrote:
> 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
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?
d - good with either option, but would probably slightly prefer b, as it
can be build towards the design doc.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 8:19 AM sankalp kohli
wrote:
> Hi,
> Community has been discussing about Apache Cassandra Management process
> since April and we had lot of discussion
+1 for piecemeal (option b).
I think I've explained my opinion on all the various threads and tickets.
-Joey
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:48 AM Vinay Chella wrote:
>
> +1 for option b, considering the advantages mentioned in dev email thread
> that Sankalp linked.
>
> ~Vinay
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 12,
I'm +0, and I share the same concerns as Sylvain.
For those of you that have +1'ed, are you planning on contributing to the
driver? Docs, code, QA? It's easy to throw a +1 down to make the driver
the responsibility of the project if you're asking others to do the work.
I vote this way because I
+1 for option b, considering the advantages mentioned in dev email thread
that Sankalp linked.
~Vinay
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM Dinesh Joshi
wrote:
> +1 for piecemeal (option b)
>
> Dinesh
>
> > On Sep 12, 2018, at 8:18 AM, sankalp kohli
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >Community has been
+1
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:37 AM Dinesh Joshi
wrote:
> +1
>
> Dinesh
>
> > On Sep 12, 2018, at 10:23 AM, Jaydeep Chovatia <
> chovatia.jayd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:00 AM Roopa Tangirala
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >>
> >> *Regards,*
> >>
> >>
+1
Dinesh
> On Sep 12, 2018, at 10:23 AM, Jaydeep Chovatia
> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:00 AM Roopa Tangirala
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> *Regards,*
>>
>> *Roopa Tangirala*
>>
>> Engineering Manager CDE
>>
>> *(408) 438-3156 - mobile*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed,
+1 for piecemeal (option b)
Dinesh
> On Sep 12, 2018, at 8:18 AM, sankalp kohli wrote:
>
> Hi,
>Community has been discussing about Apache Cassandra Management process
> since April and we had lot of discussion about which approach to take to
> get started. Several contributors have been
+1
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:00 AM Roopa Tangirala
wrote:
> +1
>
>
> *Regards,*
>
> *Roopa Tangirala*
>
> Engineering Manager CDE
>
> *(408) 438-3156 - mobile*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 8:51 AM Sylvain Lebresne
> wrote:
>
> > -0
> >
> > The project seems to have a hard time
Option "b".
Thanks,
Sumanth
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 9:59 AM Roopa Tangirala
wrote:
> +1 to b Take the best from existing side cars and make a great side car
> which ships with cassandra
>
>
> *Regards,*
>
> *Roopa Tangirala*
>
> Engineering Manager CDE
>
> *(408) 438-3156 - mobile*
>
>
>
>
>
>
+1
*Regards,*
*Roopa Tangirala*
Engineering Manager CDE
*(408) 438-3156 - mobile*
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 8:51 AM Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> -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
+1 to b Take the best from existing side cars and make a great side car
which ships with cassandra
*Regards,*
*Roopa Tangirala*
Engineering Manager CDE
*(408) 438-3156 - mobile*
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 8:19 AM sankalp kohli
wrote:
> Hi,
> Community has been discussing about Apache
-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
+1
But I also think getting this through incubation might take a while/be
impossible given how large the contributor list looks…
> On Sep 12, 2018, at 10:22 AM, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
>
> +1
>
> (Incubation looks like it may be challenging to get acceptance from all
> existing contributors,
+1
(Incubation looks like it may be challenging to get acceptance from all
existing contributors, though)
--
Jeff Jirsa
> On Sep 12, 2018, at 8:12 AM, Nate McCall wrote:
>
> This will be the same process used for dtest. We will need to walk
> this through the incubator per the process
+1
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 8:12 AM Nate McCall wrote:
> This will be the same process used for dtest. We will need to walk
> this through the incubator per the process outlined here:
>
> https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ip_clearance.html
>
> Pending the outcome of this vote, we will create
Great..please start the vote to get consensus.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 8:06 AM Nate McCall wrote:
> Yep - that sounds like the best next step to me.
>
> (apologies for spotty comms folks - been/still on vacation).
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 8:03 AM sankalp kohli
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Nate,
> >
Hi,
Community has been discussing about Apache Cassandra Management process
since April and we had lot of discussion about which approach to take to
get started. Several contributors have been interested in doing this and we
need to make a decision of which approach to take.
The current
This will be the same process used for dtest. We will need to walk
this through the incubator per the process outlined here:
https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ip_clearance.html
Pending the outcome of this vote, we will create the JIRA issues for
tracking and after we go through the process,
Yep - that sounds like the best next step to me.
(apologies for spotty comms folks - been/still on vacation).
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 8:03 AM sankalp kohli wrote:
>
> Hi Nate,
> Looks like we had a lot of discussion here and everyone seems
> to be in favor. What is the next step? A
Hi Nate,
Looks like we had a lot of discussion here and everyone seems
to be in favor. What is the next step? A vote?
Thanks,
Sankalp
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:48 PM Alex Lourie wrote:
> Same here. I've been working on this project for a bit now, and I'm
> planning to continue and
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
It’s my understanding that the duplicated code is being fully donated - so
it’ll have all the usual ASF license/copyright headers when it lands in trunk.
No special steps to take here.
—
AY
On 11 September 2018 at 19:43:58, Jeremiah D Jordan (jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com)
wrote:
Be careful when
48 matches
Mail list logo
