So far no opinion for or against the guava upgrade.
Would someone review my change if I create a PR for this?
Jeff, thank you for checking.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 12:21 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote:
>
> This isn't an opinion for or against upgrading guava, just a note that the
> two classes mentioned
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:
>
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
Looking at CHANGES.txt, we've got 30+ changes since the last alpha. I
think it's a good time to cut another alpha release. The biggest item here
is Python 3 support for cqlsh. It would be good to get as much feedback as
possible on this since it's such a critical tool.
Here's what's changed:
+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
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
