[ANNOUNCE] Apache Cassandra 4.0.0 test artifact available

2021-07-08 Thread Mick Semb Wever
The test build of Cassandra 4.0.0 is available. sha1: a46146fb4ae87bfb8c6a895b2987d3a8944cab39 Git: https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/4.0.0-tentative Maven Artifacts:

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

2021-07-08 Thread Maulin Vasavada
Based on my experience I definitely like the process where everything that needs to be discussed about CEP remains in DISCUSS thread. Also I like the comment made above " The jira ticket and PR can be created as a PoC to help explain and illustrate the CEP, but nothing more than that.". Sometimes

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

2021-07-08 Thread Scott Hirleman
Or maybe someone _can_ comment on the JIRA but should also for sure put that same comment in the discussion thread? That way, it is at worst redundant and doesn't get lost as a comment on a JIRA many may not see? On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 3:32 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > I think that’s a bit

Re: Patch Available status 2021-07-07

2021-07-08 Thread Scott Hirleman
Thanks so much Brandon and Benjamin for your important work here, very valuable and much appreciated. On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:20 AM Benjamin Lerer wrote: > Hi everybody, > > One of the main issues that has been raised in the* Attracting new > contributors thread *is the time needed before a

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

2021-07-08 Thread Mick Semb Wever
> I think that’s a bit extreme – … Yeah, that was kinda my intention. But my thinking was just about getting us out of our habits of using JIRA. Of course I didn't mean any censure. Once we have some precedence in place, common-sense should prevail. Perhaps we should put together a cheat

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

2021-07-08 Thread bened...@apache.org
I think that’s a bit extreme – it seems perfectly fine to comment on Jira, but high level discussions around scope, goals and potential confounders should ideally happen on the DISCUSS thread. It’s a difficult balancing act, choosing the venue for a discussion, so let’s not censure people

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

2021-07-08 Thread Mick Semb Wever
My understanding is that they should have been raised on the DISCUSSION > thread. Once those concerns are addressed or discussed, I believe that if > nobody raised more concerns we should trigger a VOTE. > > Is my understanding correct? > Agree, we shouldn't be commenting on jira tickets or on

Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

2021-07-08 Thread bened...@apache.org
That’s how I understand the process, yes. Voting to accept the CEP just indicates that the broad strokes painted by the CEP are acceptable to the community, and a patch can be brought forward with the expectation that it will be accepted once it meets the other criteria for acceptance. From:

[DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process

2021-07-08 Thread Benjamin Lerer
Hi everybody, CEPs are now a required step for important changes to the Cassandra code base. Nevertheless, this process is new for all of us and beyond creating a CEP it seems a bit unclear what needs to be done to get the CEP approved. I will take as an example the CEP-9: Make SSLContext

Re: [DISCUSS] Jira state for second reviewer

2021-07-08 Thread Benjamin Lerer
That sounds good to me. Thanks a lot Brandon and Ekaterina for taking care of that. Le mer. 7 juil. 2021 à 23:47, Ekaterina Dimitrova a écrit : > Hey everyone, > Considering the latest report of patches which need a reviewer, I think > this new Jira state is a great addition. > I took it one