On 17 August 2016 at 03:47, Benedict Elliott Smith
> What this project really needs, and the board is chomping at the bit about,
> is diversity. The fact is, right now DataStax does 95% of the substantive
> development on the project, and so they make all the
I think a separate mailing list for just ticket creation would be nice as well.
I think that’s what many of us filter down the commits@ list to. That doesn’t
have to happen in place of the proposed change but would make it easier for
people to follow new issue creation. From there I go to
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
[ ... ]
> I propose that we take advantage of the dev list to perform that
> separation. Major new features and architectural improvements should be
> discussed first here, then when consensus on design is achieved,
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith
> This is a great example of email's inadequacies, as this innocuous (to me)
> little textual
> act resulted instead in *different* quagmire, while the first potential
> quagmire is still in
> Email is
Like many difficult problems, it is easier to point them out than to
suggest improvements. Anyway, I wasn't proposing we change the mechanisms
of communication, just excusing my simplification of (my view of) the
problem to avoid ending up in a quagmire on that topic. This is a great
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith
> I think all complex, nuanced and especially emotive topics are challenging
> to discuss over textual media, due to things like the attention span of
> your readers, the difficulties in structuring your text, and
I think all complex, nuanced and especially emotive topics are challenging
to discuss over textual media, due to things like the attention span of
your readers, the difficulties in structuring your text, and especially the
hoops that have to be jumped through to minimise the potential for
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith
> This topic is complex, and fully exploring all of the detail would be onerous
> over email.
Out of curiosity, why; What makes this topic so difficult to discuss over email?
> DataStax, in my opinion,
Thanks Jeremiah. This is moving us in the right direction.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 5:31 AM, Jeremiah D Jordan <
> Back to the topic at hand. First, let us establish that all of this stuff
> will be happening “on the mailing lists”, all JIRA
This was very much not my intention to imply. I thought I had crafted the
email carefully to not imply that at all. This topic is complex, and fully
exploring all of the detail would be onerous over email. DataStax, in my
opinion, consciously tries to be a good citizen. However there are
I don't know about everyone else, but a big deterrent in contributing code
to Cassandra for me (over the last 4 years or so) is the massive amount of
ramp up that needs to happen in order to get started working on something
meaningful. This comes in a variety of forms - understanding how test
While i agree with this generally, it's misleading.
It comes across like Datastax is dictating and excluding others from
participating, or perhaps discouraging others or whatever.
The truth is, whenever someone comes along who is independent, and
interested in developing Apache Cassandra,
This is a much more useful focusing of the discussion, in my opinion. It
seemed to me that city hall was focusing on a very narrow definition of
I would be the first to say the project need to improve here, but doing so
will be challenging; I'm not sure anyone really knows how
On 08/16/2016 10:52 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> No objections, the plan sounds good to me.
> In addition to that, prep for pushing 3.0.9 out with 3.9.
Thanks. Yes, 3.0.9 is also up for release, without any branch song and
No objections, the plan sounds good to me.
In addition to that, prep for pushing 3.0.9 out with 3.9.
On 16 August 2016 at 16:51:24, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote:
Yesterday, it was suggested on #cassandra-dev that when 3.9 is ready for
release, we release 3.8 with the
I agree with Benedict that we really shouldn't be getting into a legalese
debate on this subject, however "it didn't happen" has been brought up as a
hammer in this conversation multiple times, and I think it's important that
we put it to rest. It's pretty clear cut that projects are free to
+1 for one email.
> On Aug 16, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Josh McKenzie wrote:
> Assuming we're single digit failures combined between the two, I think a
> single test failure email would be manageable.
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Joel Knighton
Assuming we're single digit failures combined between the two, I think a
single test failure email would be manageable.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Joel Knighton
> testall: 1 failure
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 10:23 AM Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> A long time ago, I was a proponent of keeping most development discussions
> on Jira, where tickets can be self contained and the threadless nature
> helps keep discussions from getting sidetracked.
> But Cassandra was
Unfortunately when rulebooks are consulted to shape this kind of
discussion, their ambiguity begins to show. What does it mean for
something "to happen" on a mailing list? It must be a loose
interpretation, because clearly many things do not "happen" on the mailing
list, such as all of the code
While all of these things are true, it's irrelevant. The ASF has a clear
policy on this (the "it didn't happen" policy). Discussions and decisions
about the project must be done on the mailing lists. You may disagree with
the policy (as many have before you) and feel free to take it up with the
testall: 1 failure
New flaky failure. I've opened CASSANDRA-12465 and assigned
Mail list logo