On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 at 11:04, Claude Warren, Jr
wrote:
> The pull request is : https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/2842
>
That doesn't help me much.
https://github.com/Claudenw/cassandra/pull/6 is still open, and the ticket
has discussions still open in its trailing comments.
It would be
Can I get an another review/approval for the pull request?
> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/2842/files
>
It is not clear on the ticket what is being finally proposed, or what is to
be reviewed, ref: https://github.com/Claudenw/cassandra/pull/6
Keeping the ticket up to date makes this
The pull request is : https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/2842
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 10:26 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>
>
> Can I get an another review/approval for the pull request?
>> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/2842/files
>>
>
>
> It is not clear on the ticket what is
Hi,
Thanks for the generous offer. Before you do that can you give me a chance to
add back support for Caffeine for the row cache so you can test the option of
switching back to an on-heap row cache?
Ariel
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023, at 9:28 PM, Jon Haddad wrote:
> I think we should probably figure
+1
> On Dec 15, 2023, at 7:35 PM, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>
>
>
>> I'd like to add Semver4j to the production dependencies. It is currently on
>> the test classpath. The library is pretty lightweight, licensed with MIT and
>> has no transitive dependencies.
>>
>> We need to represent the
> A brief perusal shows jqwik as integrated with JUnit 5 taking a fairly
> interesting annotation-based approach to property testing. Curious if you've
> looked into or used that at all David (Capwell)? (link for the lazy:
>
Sure, I’d love to work with you on this.
—
Jon Haddad
Rustyrazorblade Consulting
rustyrazorblade.com
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 8:30 AM Ariel Weisberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the generous offer. Before you do that can you give me a chance
> to add back support for Caffeine for the row cache
> One thing where this “could” come into play is that we currently run with
> different configs at the CI level and we might be able to make this happen at
> the class or method level instead..
It'd be great to be able to declaratively indicate which configurations a test
needed to exercise and
