No tests were run today since no commits were made to the 3.9 branch. 3.9
is looking stable and very close to being ready for release; only a few
outstanding flaky test failures remain.
Starting next week, I will focus on including trunk test failures in these
digests, while also including 3.9 fai
If you wish to unsubscribe, send an email to
mailto://dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
On 08/26/2016 04:49 PM, Gvb Subrahmanyam wrote:
Please remove me from - dev@cassandra.apache.org
-Original Message-
From: Jake Farrell [mailto:jfarr...@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016
+1 on asfbot
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jake Farrell wrote:
> asfbot can log to wilderness for backup, but it does not send out digests.
> I've seen a couple of projects starting to test out and use slack/hipchat
> and then use sameroom to connect irc so conversations are not separated and
Please remove me from - dev@cassandra.apache.org
-Original Message-
From: Jake Farrell [mailto:jfarr...@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 4:36 PM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: #cassandra-dev IRC logging
asfbot can log to wilderness for backup, but it does not send out
asfbot can log to wilderness for backup, but it does not send out digests.
I've seen a couple of projects starting to test out and use slack/hipchat
and then use sameroom to connect irc so conversations are not separated and
people can use their favorite client of choice
-Jake
On Fri, Aug 26, 201
Yes. I did. My bad.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jason Brown wrote:
> Ed, did you mean this to post this to the other active thread today, the
> one about github pull requests? (just want to make sure I'm understanding
> correctly :) )
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Edward Capriolo
>
@Jeremiah, makes sense to send to commits@
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Jeremiah D Jordan <
jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for PR’s but if we start using them I think we should get them sent to
> commits@ instead of the dev@ they are currently sent to.
>
> -Jeremiah
>
> > On Aug 26,
Ed, did you mean this to post this to the other active thread today, the
one about github pull requests? (just want to make sure I'm understanding
correctly :) )
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Edward Capriolo
wrote:
> One thing to watch out for. The way apache-gossip is setup the PR's get
> s
+1 for PR’s but if we start using them I think we should get them sent to
commits@ instead of the dev@ they are currently sent to.
-Jeremiah
> On Aug 26, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Andres de la Peña wrote:
>
> +1 to GitHub PRs, I think it will make things easier.
>
> El viernes, 26 de agosto de 2016,
One thing to watch out for. The way apache-gossip is setup the PR's get
sent to the dev list. However the address is not part of the list so the
project owners get an email asking to approve/reject every PR and comment
on the PR.
This is ok because we have a small quite group but you probably do n
+1 to both as well
On 8/26/16, 11:59 AM, "Tyler Hobbs" wrote:
>+1 on doing this and using ASFBot in particular.
>
>On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Jason Brown wrote:
>
>> @Dave ASFBot looks like a winner. If others are on board with this, I can
>> work on getting it up and going.
>>
>> On Fri,
+1 on doing this and using ASFBot in particular.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Jason Brown wrote:
> @Dave ASFBot looks like a winner. If others are on board with this, I can
> work on getting it up and going.
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Dave Lester
> wrote:
>
> > +1. Check out ASFB
@Dave ASFBot looks like a winner. If others are on board with this, I can
work on getting it up and going.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Dave Lester wrote:
> +1. Check out ASFBot for logging IRC, along with other integrations.[1]
>
> ASFBot can also be used for record keeping for IRC meeting
+1 to GitHub PRs, I think it will make things easier.
El viernes, 26 de agosto de 2016, Jason Brown
escribió:
> D'oh, forgot to explicitly state that I am +1 one on the github PR proposal
> :)
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Jason Brown > wrote:
>
> > It seems to me we might get more cont
+1. Check out ASFBot for logging IRC, along with other integrations.[1]
ASFBot can also be used for record keeping for IRC meetings (example [3]) which
can automatically be sent to the appropriate apache mailing list. All other
logs are archived online. [4] It’d easy enough to link to those arch
On 26/08/2016 19:17, Jason Brown wrote:
> +1. How/where will this run? Is there any apache infra that we can make use
> of?
Don't know. Checking...
Mark
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Jake Luciani wrote:
>
>> +1 so long as it filters out the join/leave stuff :)
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2
D'oh, forgot to explicitly state that I am +1 one on the github PR proposal
:)
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Jason Brown wrote:
> It seems to me we might get more contributions if we can lower the barrier
> to participation. (see Jeff Beck's statement above)
>
> +1 to Aleksey's sentiment abo
+1 to officially supporting GitHub PRs.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM Jason Brown wrote:
> It seems to me we might get more contributions if we can lower the barrier
> to participation. (see Jeff Beck's statement above)
>
> +1 to Aleksey's sentiment about the Docs contributions.
>
> On Fri, A
+1. How/where will this run? Is there any apache infra that we can make use
of?
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Jake Luciani wrote:
> +1 so long as it filters out the join/leave stuff :)
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Jeff Jirsa
> wrote:
>
> > There exists a #cassandra-dev IRC channel t
It seems to me we might get more contributions if we can lower the barrier
to participation. (see Jeff Beck's statement above)
+1 to Aleksey's sentiment about the Docs contributions.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 26/08/2016 17:11, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> > Mark, I,
+1 so long as it filters out the join/leave stuff :)
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Jeff Jirsa
wrote:
> There exists a #cassandra-dev IRC channel that’s historically been used by
> developers discussing the project – while it’s public, it’s not archived,
> and it’s not a mailing list. The ASF
There exists a #cassandra-dev IRC channel that’s historically been used by
developers discussing the project – while it’s public, it’s not archived, and
it’s not a mailing list. The ASF encourages all discussion to be archived, and
ideally, archived on a public mailing list.
Jake suggested,
On 26/08/2016 17:11, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> Mark, I, for one, will be happy with the level of GitHub integration that
> Spark has, formal or otherwise.
If Cassandra doesn't already have it, that should be a simple request to
infra.
> As it stands right now, none of the committers/PMC members
We still include both processes in our how to contribute, but github is the
new preferred method (thanks for the reminder to update that doc)
https://github.com/apache/thrift/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md
and an example of the cross commenting: THRIFT-3876 with matching PR 1045
https://github.com/
Also, Github’s ability to modify files ‘in-place’ and create pull requests from
those changes is
extremely important for our Docs progress. Now that we have proper in-tree
documentation,
this would lower the barrier for Docs writers tremendously.
--
AY
On 26 August 2016 at 17:15:54, Jake Lucia
Jake could you show an example issue and how the pipeline works?
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Jake Farrell wrote:
> We just switched Apache Thrift over to using Github for all our inbound
> contributions, have not made Github canonical yet. We wanted to have one
> unified way to accept patc
I would love to be able to send PRs, there have a been a few minor
improvements I wanted to submit that are sitting in local branches for me
for when I have time to really learn how to submit a patch where PRs are
much more approachable now.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:11 AM Aleksey Yeschenko
Mark, I, for one, will be happy with the level of GitHub integration that Spark
has, formal or otherwise.
As it stands right now, none of the committers/PMC members have any control
over Cassandra Github mirror.
Which, among other things, means that we cannot even close the erroneously
opened
On 26/08/2016 16:33, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of creating
> a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate
> intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of changes
> in Jira.
>
> Bu
This is one of my favorite aspects of how contributions to Spark work. This
also makes it easier to have automated testing on new branches
automatically occurring.
-Russ
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 8:45 AM Ben Coverston
wrote:
> I think it would certainly make contributing to Cassandra more
> strai
We just switched Apache Thrift over to using Github for all our inbound
contributions, have not made Github canonical yet. We wanted to have one
unified way to accept patches and also make it easier for automated CI to
validate the patch prior to review. Much easier now that we have a set
pipeline
I think it would certainly make contributing to Cassandra more
straightforward.
I'm not a committer, so I don't regularly create patches, and every time I
do I have to search/verify that I'm doing it right.
But pull requests? I make pull requests every day, and GitHub makes that
process work the
Hi all,
Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of creating
a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate
intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of changes
in Jira.
But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizi
33 matches
Mail list logo
