Re: another alpha?

2020-03-03 Thread Michael Shuler
On 3/3/20 12:16 AM, Mick Semb Wever wrote: I'm happy to cut a release later this week or next, once these and others yet to be mentioned get merged. We need to do another round on the release process to wrap up CASSANDRA-14970. Great! I have a little availability over the next week or two,

Re: another alpha?

2020-03-02 Thread Mick Semb Wever
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020, at 00:57, David Capwell wrote: > Personally would prefer to wait on CASSANDRA-15358. In my testing > alpha2+ fails with this frequently on deployed clusters (actively > testing patch). > >> On Mar 2, 2020, at 1:59 PM, Nate McCall wrote: > >> The clash change is important

Re: another alpha?

2020-03-02 Thread David Capwell
Personally would prefer to wait on CASSANDRA-15358. In my testing alpha2+ fails with this frequently on deployed clusters (actively testing patch). > On Mar 2, 2020, at 2:25 PM, Dinesh Joshi wrote: > > +1 > > I think the cqlsh change itself is sufficient. However, if we're close to > having

Re: another alpha?

2020-03-02 Thread Dinesh Joshi
+1 I think the cqlsh change itself is sufficient. However, if we're close to having 15564 done we can wait. Dinesh > On Mar 2, 2020, at 1:59 PM, Nate McCall wrote: > > The clash change is important to get out, but i'd like to see a few more > 'moving parts' in place since most of these

Re: another alpha?

2020-03-02 Thread Nate McCall
The clash change is important to get out, but i'd like to see a few more 'moving parts' in place since most of these changes are docs. Thinking specifically of something like CASSANDRA-15564 (repair coordinator refactor). I'm -0 otherwise. On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 10:27 AM Jon Haddad wrote: >