1. +1(nb)
2. +1(nb)
3. +1(nb)
On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 at 7:55, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 23:07, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>
> > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> >> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
> >> Cassandra?
> >> 3. Do you support an
On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 23:07, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
>> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
>> Cassandra?
>> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
>> Cassandra, leaving scope for future develo
I am satisfied with the addition of modularity as a requirement for this
CEP. I change my vote to +1.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:57 AM Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> My votes:
>
> 1. -1 for a minor and a major reason. The minor reason is that I believe
> we reached consensus in the discussion that al
