Thanks for starting discussion!
Replying to the thread with what I would have left as comments.
––
> As yet, we lack empirical evidence to quantify the relative stability or
> instability of our project compared to a peer cohort
I think it's more important that we set a standard for the
I am also not fully clear on the motives, but welcome anything which helps
bring in better and more robust testing; thanks for starting this.
Since I can not comment in the doc I have to copy/paste and put here... =(
Reality
> ...
> investing in improving our smoke and integration testing as
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 00:57, Jon Haddad wrote:
> Just wanted to note - a vote passes if there are 3 binding +1 and no -1's.
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
Well spotted, that is now fixed
Proposing the test build of Cassandra 4.0-beta1 for release.
sha1: 5e767711360ecc4bc05a7cd219f0e680bfada004
Git:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/4.0-beta1-tentative
Maven Artifacts:
Just wanted to note - a vote passes if there are 3 binding +1 and no -1's.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 3:47 PM Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 3.11.7 for release.
>
> sha1:
Proposing the test build of Cassandra 2.2.17 for release.
sha1: cd006d275aa9b6e937c6ebd036d4d27c4ed18dbe
Git:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.2.17-tentative
Maven Artifacts:
Proposing the test build of Cassandra 3.0.21 for release.
sha1: e39d1da325f5853ab3a64d92ecf52f8271239b9e
Git:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.21-tentative
Maven Artifacts:
Proposing the test build of Cassandra 3.11.7 for release.
sha1: 9fe62b3e40147fda2cc081744bd375b04574aef7
Git:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.11.7-tentative
Maven Artifacts:
I think we should start getting automated testing to use java 11 in 4.0,
but that stability on 4.0 should not be a blocker for 4.0. Mick is doing a
lot of work to get builds running with java 11 (see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15809) and a lot more work
is needed to get java
The purpose is purely to signal a point of view on the state of testing in
the codebase, some shortcomings of the architecture, and what a few of us
are doing and further planning to do about it. Kind of a "prompt discussion
if anyone has a wild allergic reaction to it, or encourage collaboration
My goal here was to collect information, specifically around what people's
needs are and what people are testing. Some teams have a mandate they need
to move to Java 11, Python 3, etc. Some just want to take advantage of
features like low overhead heap profiling [1]. I don't have the visibility
Zgc
> On Jul 14, 2020, at 2:26 AM, Robert Stupp wrote:
>
>
>> On 14. Jul 2020, at 07:33, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps the most notable parts of jdk11 (for cassandra) aren’t even prod
>> ready in jdk11 , so what’s the motivation and what does the project gain
>> from revisiting the
If I understand correctly, you’re proposing to “officially support” Java 8 and
11 (i.e. remove the “experimental” tag for Java 11).
+1 on that from my side. It totally makes sense to me for 4.0.
Don’t want to hijack the original thread (as it’s just about C* 4.0), but some
thoughts about
> On 14. Jul 2020, at 07:33, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
>
> Perhaps the most notable parts of jdk11 (for cassandra) aren’t even prod
> ready in jdk11 , so what’s the motivation and what does the project gain from
> revisiting the experimental designation on jdk11?
Can you elaborate on what’s not even
14 matches
Mail list logo
