Hi Jonathan,
This clarifying change has been incorporated.
If you both rescind your veto, we have time to rescue this vote.
From: Jonathan Ellis
Date: Friday, 15 October 2021 at 19:11
To: dev
Subject: Moving CEP-15 forward
Hi all,
We have had several discussions today as to how to move
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 7:18 AM Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> ...
> *This work shall be developed in a modular manner, to allow for coexistence
> with other consensus protocols or transaction managers. This will allow us
> to evolve Accord without precluding alternative solutions, as future work
>
Amending the CEP with the proposed addendum seems to me like a reasonable
compromise to de-escalate this matter and move forward, addressing
potential concerns without any prejudice to the original goals of the CEP.
Em sex., 15 de out. de 2021 às 15:11, Jonathan Ellis
escreveu:
> Hi all,
>
> We
Hi all,
We have had several discussions today as to how to move forward on CEP-15,
given that the first vote was vetoed by myself and Mick. From my side the
concern has been that the distributed transactions design space inherently
requires tradeoffs; Accord represents one set of those tradeoffs
I agree with Jeff that the ideal would be to reach a point where the -1 are
withdrawn
Le ven. 15 oct. 2021 à 16:13, Jeff Jirsa a écrit :
> I support adopting this CEP, and the transaction semantics, and the
> incremental approach to developing transactions, so I'm +1 on all three
>
> I also
> valuing community over code
“Community” involves treating others with respect: following the norms of
conversation by acknowledging and responding to the points and queries of
others, accepting when you have a minority position, and stepping aside when
your goals are not clearly in conflict
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:54 PM Dinesh Joshi
wrote:
> Thank you for clarifying the terminology. I haven’t honestly heard anybody
> call these as interactive transactions. Therefore it is very crucial that
> we lay out things systematically so everyone is on the same page. You’re
> talking about
I'm worried that by the time a consensus is reached, the people who
originally purposed the CEP may have long lost their passion about it
and may no longer willing to contribute.
On 15/10/2021 16:55, Benjamin Lerer wrote:
Reaching consensus is hard but we will get there :-)
Le ven. 15 oct.
Reaching consensus is hard but we will get there :-)
Le ven. 15 oct. 2021 à 17:33, Mick Semb Wever a écrit :
> >
> > I have reviewed CEP-15 and I must say, I'm excited to see its inclusion
> > into mainline Cassandra, and I'm disheartened to see what appears to be
> an
> > unsubstantiated veto
>
> I have reviewed CEP-15 and I must say, I'm excited to see its inclusion
> into mainline Cassandra, and I'm disheartened to see what appears to be an
> unsubstantiated veto of the proposal from the committee's leadership.
>
Leif,
the Accord paper and CEP-15 has indeed generated a lot of
Thank you for clarifying the terminology. I haven’t honestly heard anybody call
these as interactive transactions. Therefore it is very crucial that we lay out
things systematically so everyone is on the same page. You’re talking about
bundling several statements into a single SQL transaction
I support adopting this CEP, and the transaction semantics, and the
incremental approach to developing transactions, so I'm +1 on all three
I also think that it is preferrable that we get to a point where the -1 be
withdrawn, because I think it's a bad precedent to force the PMC to try to
+1 to all (nb)
I think this CEP is valuable because it improves on the existing
shortcomings in performance and ability to execute queries that can be
expressed in CQL statements and provides a foundation for future work.
Adding interactive transactions is not in the original scope of the
CEP,
Hi all,
I'm not an active member of the c* developer community, but I'm a user of
c* at my day job, and I have a healthy background in distributed storage
systems and consensus protocols (my previous job and university training).
I have reviewed CEP-15 and I must say, I'm excited to see its
1. +1
2. +1
3. +1
On 10/14/21 11:31 AM, bened...@apache.org wrote:
Hi everyone,
I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as
discussion has been circular for some time.
1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed
1. +1
2. +1
3. +1
Em sex., 15 de out. de 2021 às 10:01, Brandon Williams
escreveu:
> 1. +1
> 2. +1
> 3. +1
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:38 AM bened...@apache.org
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three
> sub-decisions, as discussion
1. +1
2. +1
3. +1
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:38 AM bened...@apache.org
wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as
> discussion has been circular for some time.
>
> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> 2. Do you support the
>
> The major reason is that there is not a clear path from the simple CAS
> operations supported by Accord to full SQL support
>
We have not discussed full SQL support and I know of no existing consensus
on the topic of the evolution of our developer APIs. It may be worth
opening up a ML DISCUSS
1. +1
2. +1
3. +1
Benjamin
Le ven. 15 oct. 2021 à 09:03, Sam Tunnicliffe a écrit :
> 1. +1
> 2. +1
> 3. +1
>
> Thanks,
> Sam
>
> > On 14 Oct 2021, at 17:31, bened...@apache.org wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three
> sub-decisions, as
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:37 AM Dinesh Joshi
wrote:
> On 10/14/21 6:54 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>
> > I think I've also been clear that I want a path to supporting (1) local
> > latencies (SLOG is a more elegant solution but "let's just let people
> give
> > up global serializability like LWT"
1. +1
2. +1
3. +1
Thanks,
Sam
> On 14 Oct 2021, at 17:31, bened...@apache.org wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as
> discussion has been circular for some time.
>
> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> 2. Do you support
1. +1
2. +1
3. +1
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 04:31:29PM +, bened...@apache.org wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as
> discussion has been circular for some time.
>
> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> 2. Do you support the
22 matches
Mail list logo
