Re: [DISCUSS] Harry in-tree

+1 > On 29 Nov 2023, at 07:23, Marcus Eriksson wrote: > > +1! > > /Marcus > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 04:43:36PM +0100, Alex Petrov wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> With TCM landed, there will be way more Harry tests in-tree: we are using it >> for many coordination tests, and there's now a

Re: [VOTE] Release Harry 0.0.2

+1 > On 29 Nov 2023, at 11:35, Sam Tunnicliffe wrote: > > +1 > >> On 29 Nov 2023, at 11:14, Alex Petrov wrote: >> >> Even though we would like to bring harry in-tree, this is not an immediate >> priority. Meanwhile, we need to unblock RPM builds for trunk, which means no >> custom jars. We

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-beta1

-1 on cutting a beta1 in this state. An alpha2 would be acceptable now, but I’m not sure there is significant value to be had from it. Merge the fixes for outstanding issues listed above, then cut beta1. With TCM and Accord pushed into 5.1, SAI is the headliner user-visible feature. It is what

Re: Push TCM (CEP-21) and Accord (CEP-15) to 5.1 (and cut an immediate 5.1-alpha1)

I’m not so sure that many folks will choose to go 4.0->5.0->5.1 path instead of just waiting longer for TCM+Accord to be in, and go 4.0->5.1 in one hop. Nobody likes going through these upgrades. So I personally expect 5.0 to be a largely ghost release if we go this route, adopted by few, just

Re: [VOTE] Accept java-driver

+1 > On 5 Oct 2023, at 10:35, Benedict wrote: > > Surely it needs to be shared with the foundation and the PMC so we can > verify? Or at least have ASF legal confirm they have received and are > satisfied with the tarball? It certainly can’t be kept private to DS, AFAICT. > > Of course it

Re: [DISCUSS] Vector type and empty value

Allowing zero-length byte arrays for most old types is just a legacy from Darker Days. It’s a distinct concern from columns being nullable or not. There are a couple types where this makes sense: strings and blobs. All else should not allow this except for backward compatibility reasons. So,

Re: Changing the output of tooling between majors

As Eric said, a major release is not a license to make externally visible breaking changes. We are too mature a project now. I have OCD tendencies like many people here, but one must learn to live with aesthetically imperfect tool output. Internal changes are fine, external changes that are

Re: Improved DeletionTime serialization to reduce disk size

Distant future people will not be happy about this, I can already tell you now. Sounds like a reasonable improvement to me however. > On 23 Jun 2023, at 07:22, Berenguer Blasi wrote: > > Hi all, > > DeletionTime.markedForDeleteAt is a long useconds since Unix Epoch. But I > noticed that with

Re: [DISCUSSIONS] Replace ant eclipse-warnings with CheckerFramework

Sounds like a clear improvement to me. Only once this check flagged a legitimate issue I missed, if I’m remembering correctly. All other instances have just been annoyances, forcing to add a redundant suppressed annotation. > On 15 Jun 2023, at 19:01, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > > Hi

Re: [VOTE] CEP-8 Datastax Drivers Donation

+1 > On 15 Jun 2023, at 15:19, Chris Lohfink wrote: > > +1 > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 9:05 PM Jon Haddad > wrote: >> +1 >> >> On 2023/06/13 14:14:35 Jeremy Hanna wrote: >> > Calling for a vote on CEP-8 [1]. >> > >> > To clarify the intent, as Benjamin

Re: [VOTE] CEP-30 ANN Vector Search

+1 > On 26 May 2023, at 07:19, Berenguer Blasi wrote: > > +1 > > On 26/5/23 6:07, guo Maxwell wrote: >> +1 >> >> Dinesh Joshi mailto:djo...@apache.org>>于2023年5月26日 >> 周五上午11:08写道： >>> +1 >>> On May 25, 2023, at 8:45 AM, Jonathan Ellis >>> > wrote:

Re: Agrona vs fastutil and fastutil-concurrent-wrapper

This ^ It’s an absolutely beautifully written library by Martin Thompson, my go-to for years if I’m ever asked for an example of a Java codebase to study. I have read it essentially entirely, and more than once, and it makes me feel a little happier but also inadequate every time I do. It

Re: [DISCUSS] The future of CREATE INDEX

This. I would also consider adding CREATE LEGACY INDEX syntax as an alias for today’s CREATE INDEX, the latter to be deprecated and (in very distant future) removed. > On 12 May 2023, at 13:14, Benedict wrote: > > This creates huge headaches for everyone successfully using 2i today though, >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.29

+1 > On 8 May 2023, at 09:44, Miklosovic, Stefan > wrote: > > Proposing the test build of Cassandra 3.0.29 for release. > > sha1: 087cffce636b63c12e328994d52bdf8f4ccc9750 > Git: https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/3.0.29-tentative > Maven Artifacts: >

Re: [VOTE] CEP-28: Reading and Writing Cassandra Data with Spark Bulk Analytics

+1 > On 4 May 2023, at 17:46, Doug Rohrer wrote: > > Hello all, > > I’d like to put CEP-28 to a vote. > > Proposal: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-28%3A+Reading+and+Writing+Cassandra+Data+with+Spark+Bulk+Analytics > > Jira: >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.11.15

+1 > On 2 May 2023, at 07:37, Miklosovic, Stefan > wrote: > > Proposing the test build of Cassandra 3.11.15 for release. > > sha1: 6cdcf5e56a77cf40c251125d68856a614eccbc53 > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.11.15-tentative > Maven Artifacts:

Re: [DISCUSS] Introduce DATABASE as an alternative to KEYSPACE

Dig deeper :) It’s existed since day one in both CQL2 and CQL3. https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/cassandra-1.0/src/java/org/apache/cassandra/cql/Cql.g#L526-L527 > On 10 Apr 2023, at 00:35, Patrick McFadin wrote: > > I was trying to remember when SCHEMA got added to the CQL parser.

Re: [DISCUSS] Introduce DATABASE as an alternative to KEYSPACE

FYI we support SCHEMA as an alias to KEYSPACE today (have since always). Can use CREATE SCHEMA in place of CREATE KEYSPACE, etc. > On 4 Apr 2023, at 19:23, Henrik Ingo wrote: > > I find the Postgres terminology overly complex. Where most SQL databases will > have several *databases*, each

Re: [VOTE] CEP-26: Unified Compaction Strategy

+1 > On 4 Apr 2023, at 16:56, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > > +1 > > On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 11:44, Benjamin Lerer > wrote: >> +1 >> >> Le mar. 4 avr. 2023 à 17:17, Andrés de la Peña > > a écrit : >>> +1 >>> >>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at

Re: CASSANDRA-18247 committed

Hurray! Great work, thanks for making it happen. — AY > On 20 Mar 2023, at 17:19, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Happy Monday! > > CASSANDRA-18247 was just committed. It adds testing CircleCI configuration > for JDK11+JDK17. Full description and how to use it can be found

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 4.1.1

+1 > On 17 Mar 2023, at 13:54, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > >> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who has >> tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are considered >> binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding +1s and no -1's. > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for sstable formats m* (in trunk)

> Saying that there is never any complexity and we should keep formats in > perpetuity, and I'm sitting here having a heart attack, srsly. Nobody is claiming that. Don’t let a straw man give you a heart attack. > Though I _always_ recommend users upgrade all sstables, before and after > every

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for sstable formats m* (in trunk)

I’m not sure we have an explicit rule at the moment. Would probably based on calendar time in addition to release versions if we had one. Addressing these on case by case basis for now is fine IMO. I’d say the general principle should be treat extended compatibility (between releases in

Re: Should we cut some new releases?

+1 > On 14 Mar 2023, at 05:50, Berenguer Blasi wrote: > > +1 > > On 13/3/23 21:25, Jacek Lewandowski wrote: >> +1 >> >> pon., 13 mar 2023, 20:36 użytkownik Miklosovic, Stefan >> mailto:stefan.mikloso...@netapp.com>> napisał: >>> Yes, I was waiting for CASSANDRA-18125 to be in. >>> >>> I can

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for sstable formats m* (in trunk)

Raising messaging service minimum, I have a less strong opinion on, but on dropping m* sstable code I’m strongly -1. 1. This is code on a rarely touched path 2. It’s very stable and battle tested at this point 3. Removing it doesn’t reduce much complexity at all, just a few branches are

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release date

Don’t need to revert it so long as the feature they are for is not enabled by default. Or, if it’s a bit away from being useful enough to even test - mad hard-disabled without a way to enable. > On 1 Mar 2023, at 16:34, Henrik Ingo wrote: > > already merged 3 patches, but still has 2 to go?

Re: [DISCUSS] Allow UPDATE on settings virtual table to change running configuration

e missing the > volatile keyword. > > Le mer. 22 févr. 2023 à 11:36, Aleksey Yeshchenko <mailto:alek...@apple.com>> a écrit : >> FWIW most of those volatile fields, if not in fact all of them, should NOT >> be volatile at all. Someone started the trend and most f

Re: [DISCUSS] Allow UPDATE on settings virtual table to change running configuration

FWIW most of those volatile fields, if not in fact all of them, should NOT be volatile at all. Someone started the trend and most folks have been copycatting or doing the same for consistency with the rest of the codebase. Please definitely don’t rely on that. > On 21 Feb 2023, at 21:06, Maxim

Re: [VOTE] CEP-21 Transactional Cluster Metadata

+1 > On 6 Feb 2023, at 17:24, Benedict wrote: > > +1 > >> On 6 Feb 2023, at 16:17, Brandon Williams wrote: >> >>  >> +1 >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2023, 10:15 AM Sam Tunnicliffe > > wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I would like to start a vote on this CEP. >>> >>>

Re: Implicitly enabling ALLOW FILTERING on virtual tables

Just make virtual table implementations decide? Add a method to VirtualTable interface to indicate if this is desirable, and call it a day? > On 6 Feb 2023, at 09:41, Benjamin Lerer wrote: > > Making ALLOW FILTERING a table option implies giving the right to the person > creating the table

Re: [DISCUSS] API modifications and when to raise a thread on the dev ML

Bringing light to new proposed APIs no less important - if not more, for reasons already mentioned in this thread. For it’s not easy to change them later. Voting B. > On 2 Feb 2023, at 10:15, Andrés de la Peña wrote: > > If it's a breaking change, like removing a method or property, I think

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

hat the reviews that have > already happened in the feature branch are sufficient and there isn't a need > for a new full blown review. > > As far as I can tell, this email thread is exactly that process and I imagine > was at least one of the reasons to send this heads up ema

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

What Benedict says is that the commits into cassandra/cep-15-accord and cassandra-accord/trunk branch have all been vetted by at least two committers already. Each authored by a Cassandra committer and then reviewed by a Cassandra committer. That *is* our bar for merging into Cassandra trunk.

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

Switching a major default in a minor release is way worse than doing it in a GA - less notice and visibility, many folks don’t even read minor version NEWS.txt before upgrading. Trunk is fine by me though. > On 12 Jan 2023, at 13:14, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > >> Ok, wrt G1 default, this is

Re: Issue when creating a stream session

Indeed, it is safe to clean up now. Normally we prefer to do cleanups like that on trunk only, but I’d say feel free to remove this dead code in 4.0+ if that’s the branch you are targeting in CASSANDRA-17199. > On 19 Dec 2022, at 03:53, Yuki Morishita wrote: > > I dug the git history and it

Re: [VOTE] CEP-25: Trie-indexed SSTable format

+1 > On 19 Dec 2022, at 13:42, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > > +1 > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 8:30, J. D. Jordan > wrote: >> +1 nb >> >> > On Dec 19, 2022, at 7:07 AM, Brandon Williams > > > wrote: >> > >> > +1 >> > >> > Kind

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 4.1.0 GA

Sure. > On 6 Dec 2022, at 18:14, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > >> Let’s get these fixes in and roll a pure RC2. > > > > Given that we're talking about two one-liners, just changing time units, what > are folks thoughts about skipping rc2 and just re-cutting 4.1.0 (GA) ? > > (I agree with the

Re: [DISCUSS] API modifications and when to raise a thread on the dev ML

ce > a process that has a high cost in terms of time and effort for small changes. > So far nobody has been able to provide me with examples of times where it > would have been needed. I am sorry. I see the cost not the benefit. > > > Le mar. 6 déc. 2022 à 16:18, Aleksey Yeshc

Re: [DISCUSS] API modifications and when to raise a thread on the dev ML

Public APIs are 1) essentially forever-lasting and 2) are what our users actually get to interact with. A suboptimal public API can be annoying to work with at best, and at worst force and cement suboptimal implementations. The goal here is to make sure that whatever public API changes we

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 4.1.0 GA

v1. We >>>> see way more contention on v2 for a LOCAL_SERIALIZABLE workload that >>>> writes/reads to only 100 >>>> partitions (v2 performs better for higher partition counts). We're still >>>> investigating what's going >>>> on. >>&

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 4.1.0 GA

+1 > On 5 Dec 2022, at 10:17, Benjamin Lerer wrote: > > +1 > > Le lun. 5 déc. 2022 à 11:02, Berenguer Blasi > a écrit : >> +1 >> >> On 5/12/22 10:53, guo Maxwell wrote: >>> +1 >>> >>> Mick Semb Wever mailto:m...@apache.org>>于2022年12月5日 >>> 周一下午5:33写道：

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 4.1-rc1

+1 > On 18 Nov 2022, at 12:10, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > Proposing the test build of Cassandra 4.1-rc1 for release. > > sha1: d6822c45ae3d476bc2ff674cedf7d4107b8ca2d0 > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/4.1-rc1-tentative > Maven Artifacts: >

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

All right. I’ll clarify then. -0 on switching the default to G1 *this late* just before RC1. -1 on switching the default offheap_objects *for 4.1 RC1*, but all for it in principle, for 4.2, after we run some more test and resolve the concerns raised by Jeff. Let’s please try to avoid this kind

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

I assume not with 4.0/4.1 though. It might be a better default than CMS, but switching a major default like this (an memtable allocation) is not something that should be snuck in at the very last moment. In case of GC, reasonably extensive performance testing should be the expectations.

Re: [VOTE] Revising release gating criteria and CI systems

Sure, +1 > On 11 Oct 2022, at 13:15, Andrés de la Peña wrote: > > +1 > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 at 11:57, Brandon Williams > wrote: > +1 > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 7:30 AM Josh McKenzie > wrote: > > > > DISCUSS thread: > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 4.1-beta1

+1 > On 3 Oct 2022, at 06:27, Berenguer Blasi wrote: > > +1 > > On 30/9/22 16:20, Brandon Williams wrote: >> I'm +1 under these conditions as well. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Brandon >> >> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 3:34 PM Mick Semb Wever wrote: The vote will be open for 72 hours

Re: Shall 4.2 become 5.0 ?

Don’t have an opinion on designating 4.2 as 5.0 instead, though it might be a nice idea for marketing reasons, if enough splashy features make it into it. If or when we go with 5.0 however, we don’t have to drop any compatibility with older versions just because our SemVer rules technically

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding dependency on agrona

Almost added it twice myself. High quality library with many nifty classes, +1 from me. > On 21 Sep 2022, at 13:28, Branimir Lambov wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > CASSANDRA-17240 (Trie memtable implementation) introduces a dependency on the > agrona library

Re: dtests to reproduce the schema disagreement

The absolute easiest way would be to down one of the two nodes first, run CREATE TABLE on the live node, shut it down, get the other one up, and run the same CREATE TABLE there, the bring up the down node. > On 9 Aug 2022, at 07:48, Konstantin Osipov via dev > wrote: > > * Cheng Wang via dev

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 4.0.0

-1 from me unfortunately because of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-16797 being legit (but also beyond trivial to fix). > On 13 Jul 2021, at 12:49, bened...@apache.org wrote: > > Do we support aarch64? If we don’t we

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 4.0-rc1 (take2)

+1 > On 23 Apr 2021, at 08:51, Sam Tunnicliffe wrote: > > +1 > >> On 23 Apr 2021, at 04:19, Jasonstack Zhao Yang >> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 08:16, Nate McCall wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 6:59 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: >>> Proposing

Re: [DISCUSS] Limitting the 4.0 GA scope

I believe we wouldn’t knowingly ship a release with [CASSANDRA-16619 > Loss of commit log data possible after sstable ingest] in it, so I’d say at least that one needs to be fixed, even

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 4.0-rc1

+1 > On 29 Mar 2021, at 14:05, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > Proposing the test build of Cassandra 4.0-rc1 for release. > > sha1: 2facbc97ea215faef1735d9a3d5697162f61bc8c > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/4.0-rc1-tentative > Maven Artifacts: >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.24

+1 > On 29 Jan 2021, at 14:31, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > > +1(nb) > > On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 at 8:21, Oleksandr Petrov > wrote: > >>> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 4.0-beta4 for release. >> >> Correction: test build of 3.0.24. The rest looks right. >> >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at

Re: [VOTE] Accept the Harry donation

+1 > On 16 Sep 2020, at 16:09, Sumanth Pasupuleti > wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 7:41 AM Jon Meredith wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 8:28 AM David Capwell >> wrote: >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> On Sep 16, 2020,

Re: [DISCUSS] Change style guide to recommend use of @Override

+1. Some of us have already adopted this change some time ago, but it’d be nice to make it official for everybody. > On 1 Sep 2020, at 19:27, David Capwell wrote: > > Currently our style guide recommends to avoid using @Override and updates > intellij's code style to exclude it by default; I

Re: Problem in updating schema in Cassandra 3.11.4

I’m reasonably certain that this is one of the things that I fixed in 4.0. It’d be too invasive a change for 3.11, unfortunately. > On 1 Sep 2020, at 16:52, Benjamin Lerer wrote: > > Hi, > > Could you precise what you mean by " will only validate the schema while > changing in memory, and

Re: naming development branches consistently

Last thing I want is to bikeshed, but seems like ‘main’ is what’s being adopted by GitHub, so we might as well rename all ‘master’ and ’trunk’ branches to that. > On 24 Aug 2020, at 17:22, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > Ah! Totally didn't even think of that. Good point. > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020

Re: [Vote] Remove Windows support from 4.0+

+1 > On 10 Aug 2020, at 04:14, Yuki Morishita wrote: > > As per the discussion(*), I propose to remove Windows support from 4.0 > release and onward. > > Windows scripts are not maintained and we lack windows test > environments. WIndows users can use docker or cloud environments to > set up

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.21

+1 > On 14 Jul 2020, at 23:49, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > Proposing the test build of Cassandra 3.0.21 for release. > > sha1: e39d1da325f5853ab3a64d92ecf52f8271239b9e > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.21-tentative > Maven Artifacts: >

Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)

+1 > On 20 Jun 2020, at 16:12, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > Link to doc: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes > in favour

Re: Calling for release managers (Committers and PMC)

Please add me as well. > On 12 May 2020, at 09:51, Sam Tunnicliffe wrote: > > Me too. > >> On 11 May 2020, at 20:23, Jake Luciani wrote: >> >> Happy to lend a hand >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 3:12 PM Eric Evans >> wrote: >> >>> I can take a turn. >>> >>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 11:10 AM

Re: Discussion: addition to CEP guide

+1 > On 23 Apr 2020, at 12:58, Benjamin Lerer wrote: > > +1 for both > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:49 AM Jordan West wrote: > >> +1 (nb) on both counts. Thanks for bringing this up! >> >> Jordan >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:53 AM Joshua McKenzie >> wrote: >> Maybe

Re: Simplify voting rules for in-jvm-dtest-api releases

+1 > On 15 Apr 2020, at 14:35, Oleksandr Petrov wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Apache release rules were made for first-class projects. I would like to > propose simplifying voting rules for in-jvm-dtest-api project [1]. > > A bit of background: in-jvm-dtest-api is a project that is used by all

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 4.0-alpha4

+1 > On 11 Apr 2020, at 00:02, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > Proposing the test build of Cassandra 4.0-alpha4 for release. > > sha1: d00c004cc10986fc41c2070f9c5d0007e03a45c3 > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/4.0-alpha4-tentative > Maven

Re: server side describe

Yeah, I feel like it’s a bad example to use to highlight 4.0 scope creep (which is less of a thing than some fear). The work there is already done, and it’s extremely unintrusive. There is no reason whatsoever to block 4.0 on it, but no reason not to commit - now, in a beta, in the first RC,

Re: [DISCUSS] Client protocol changes (Was: 20200217 4.0 Status Update)

For what it’s worth, we could trivially implement support for passing down the timeout in 4.0.0, so that both the server and the client are able to parse the frames with and without them, but delay implementation of the server side logic necessary for terminating requests early until a further

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to using GitHub pull requests?

substantial, I vastly prefer to summarise my feedback (and see others’ feedback summarised) in JIRA comments - an opinion I and other contributors have shared in one or two similar threads over the years. > On 24 Jan 2020, at 12:21, Aleksey Yeshchenko > wrote: > > The person introduci

Re: Improvements on C* v3.11

Normally we prefer new features to go to trunk. In some rare cases, when the risk is low and the value of a new feature is high, we make exceptions - but usually early in a major version life cycle, and mostly in the past, when we were a lot more lax about such things. In this particular case

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.19

+1 > On 24 Oct 2019, at 18:25, Michael Shuler wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.19. > > sha1: a81bfd6b7db3a373430b3c4e8f4e930b199796f0 > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.19-tentative > Artifacts: >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.11.5

+1 > On 24 Oct 2019, at 18:26, Michael Shuler wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.11.5. > > sha1: b697af87f8e1b20d22948390d516dba1fbb9eee7 > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.11.5-tentative > Artifacts: >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.2.15

+1 > On 24 Oct 2019, at 18:25, Michael Shuler wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.15. > > sha1: 4ee4ceea28a1cb77b283c7ce0135340ddff02086 > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.2.15-tentative > Artifacts: >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 4.0-alpha2

+1 > On 24 Oct 2019, at 18:26, Michael Shuler wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 4.0-alpha2. > > sha1: ca928a49c68186bdcd57dea8b10c30991c6a3c55 > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/4.0-alpha2-tentative > Artifacts: >

Re: Protocol-impacting (internode and client) changes for 4.0

+1; in particular since the protocol itself is still in beta > On 9 Oct 2019, at 17:26, Oleksandr Petrov wrote: > > Hi, > > During NGCC/ACNA19 we've had quite a few conversations around the 4.0 > release. Many (minor) features and changes suggested during that time are > possible to implement

Re: [VOTE-2] Apache Cassandra Release Lifecycle

+1 as a rather reasonable starting point; we can make changes to the process in the future if need be. > On 8 Oct 2019, at 19:00, sankalp kohli wrote: > > Hi, >We have discussed in the email thread[1] about Apache Cassandra Release > Lifecycle. We came up with a doc[2] for it. We have

Re: 4.0 alpha before apachecon?

Not really important IMO if we do or do not cut a new branch yet. So let’s hold off? But as mentioned on Slack, I really like the idea of cutting an alpha now, with clear understanding that the API will still slightly change before the 4.0-GA. There is enough complete work in trunk that will

Re: Java8 compatibility broken in 4.0

No, this is not intentional. At the very least for 4.0 we are going to keep compatibility with Java 8. > On 11 Jun 2019, at 10:04, Tommy Stendahl wrote: > > Hi, > > I can't find a way to build 4.0 artifacts so I can run Cassandra using Java8. > Building the artifacts ("ant artifacts" or "ant

Re: Acceptable for trunk? Committing the patch for "Customize cassandra log directory" (CASSANDRA-15090)

Yeah. I wouldn’t even go and ask for a waiver for anything as trivial as this change. Common sense of a committer should be sufficient. > On 26 May 2019, at 09:31, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > > The ticket CASSANDRA-15090 has a patch to introduce the variable > $CASSANDRA_LOG_DIR > >

Re: TLP tools for stress testing and building test clusters in AWS

some standardised workloads and test bed. >>> At the moment we’re benefiting from some large contributors doing their own >>> proprietary performance testing, which is super valuable and something >>> we’ve lacked before. But I’m also keen to see some more repr

Re: TLP tools for stress testing and building test clusters in AWS

Hey Jon, This sounds exciting and pretty useful, thanks. Looking forward to using tlp-stress for validating 15066 performance. We should touch base some time next week to pick a comprehensive set of workloads and versions, perhaps? > On 12 Apr 2019, at 16:34, Jon Haddad wrote: > > I don't

Re: Jira: Author Field

Some of it is just for clear attribution. Occasionally, you do get an extensive review that borders on authoring/coauthoring. Sometimes you get a large body of work co-created by several people in author capacity. Having a multi-user Authors field, in addition to the multi-user Reviewers

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.21

Not sure we need another 2.1 release, this one included, but sure, +1 So long as the branch itself stays kinda open and most critical issues can have at least fixes for them committed, the interested parties can then keep building the artefacts manually. Once 4.0 is out we can freeze the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.2.14

+1 > On 3 Feb 2019, at 00:32, Michael Shuler wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.14. > > sha1: af91658353ba601fc8cd08627e8d36bac62e936a > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.2.14-tentative > Artifacts: >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.18

+1 > On 4 Feb 2019, at 00:39, Joseph Lynch wrote: > > 3.0.18-tentative unit and dtest run: > https://circleci.com/gh/jolynch/cassandra/tree/3.0.18-tentative > > unit tests: 0 failures > dtests: 1 failure > * test_closing_connections - thrift_hsha_test.TestThriftHSHA ( >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.11.4

+1 > On 3 Feb 2019, at 00:31, Michael Shuler wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.11.4. > > sha1: fd47391aae13bcf4ee995abcde1b0e180372d193 > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.11.4-tentative > Artifacts: >

Re: [VOTE] Change Jira Workflow

Sure, +1 > On 18 Dec 2018, at 09:42, Joseph Lynch wrote: > > +1 non-binding > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:15 AM Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > >> +1 >> -- >> Sylvain >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:34 AM Oleksandr Petrov < >> oleksandr.pet...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Mon,

Re: JIRA Workflow Proposals

1. C, D, A, B, E 2. B, C, A 3. A 4. Meh > On 11 Dec 2018, at 16:28, Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > > Just to re-summarise the questions for people: > > 1. (A) Only contributors may edit or transition issues; (B) Only contributors > may transition issues; (C) Only Jira-users may transition

Re: Using Cassandra as local db without cluster

I agree with Jeff here. Furthermore, Cassandra should generally be your solution of last resort - if nothing else works out. In your case I’d try sqlite or leveldb (or rocksdb). > On 18 Oct 2018, at 11:46, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > I can’t think of a situation where I’d choose Cassandra as a

Re: Moving tickets out of 4.0 post freeze

We could continue as 4.0.x, 5.0.x, 6.0.x, 7.0.x, 8.0.x, 9.0.x, with minor forever fixed to 0. But I’m also struggling with how to justify the existence of that unused digit. We have never really done semantic versioning, we’ve arbitrarily flipped the major whenever we felt like “it was the

Re: Side Car New Repo vs not

Aleksey, Can you please elaborate on the reasons for your -1? This way we can make progress towards any one approach. Thanks, Sankalp On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 8:39 AM Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote: > FWIW I’m strongly -1 on in-tree approach, and would much prefer a separate > repo,

Re: Side Car New Repo vs not

FWIW I’m strongly -1 on in-tree approach, and would much prefer a separate repo, dtest-style. — AY On 21 August 2018 at 16:36:02, Jeremiah D Jordan (jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) wrote: I think the following is a very big plus of it being in tree: >> * Faster iteration speed in general. For

Re: GitHub PR ticket spam

Nice indeed. I assume it also doesn’t spam commits@ when done this way, in which case double +1 from me. — AY On 6 August 2018 at 17:18:36, Jeremiah D Jordan (jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) wrote: Oh nice. I like the idea of keeping it but moving it to the worklog tab. +1 on that from me. >

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

+1 from me too. — AY On 10 July 2018 at 04:17:26, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apache.org) wrote: > We have done all this for previous releases and we know it has not worked > well. So how giving it one more try is going to help here. Can someone > outline what will change for 4.0 which will make

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

nch off 4.0, and keep trunk > > technically active. > > These are two very different statements. :) Which is it? > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:57 PM Aleksey Yeshchenko > wrote: > > > If we want to have a stable, usable 4.0.0 release out in the next 6-12

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

If we want to have a stable, usable 4.0.0 release out in the next 6-12 months, there needs to be a focused effort on getting it out - or else it’ll just never happen. This is more of a call to action and announcement of intent than an attempt to enforce policy; we can and probably will branch

Re: Which approach should we use for exposing metrics through Virtual tables?

I don’t think it’s really necessary. Or at least I’m not seeing why having individual, specialised virtual tables is not sufficient. Nor do I think that we should expose everything that nodetool does, so IMO we shouldn’t aim for that. Even if the goal were to eventually deprecate and remove

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

So long as non-user-visible improvements, including big ones, can still go in 4.0 at that stage, I’m all for it. — AY On 5 April 2018 at 21:14:03, Nate McCall (zznat...@gmail.com) wrote: >>> My understanding, from Nate's summary, was June 1 is the freeze date for >>> features. I expect we

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

June feels a bit too early to me as well. I personally would go prefer end of August / beginning of September. +1 to the idea of having a fixed date, though, just not this one. — AY On 5 April 2018 at 19:20:12, Stefan Podkowinski (s...@apache.org) wrote: June is too early. On 05.04.18

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

3.0 will be the most popular release for probably at least another couple years - I see no good reason to cap its support window. We aren’t Oracle. — AY On 3 April 2018 at 22:29:29, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote: Apache Cassandra 3.0 is supported until 6 months after 4.0

Re: Paying off tech debt and correctly naming things

Poor and out-of-date naming of things is probably the least serious part of our technical debt. Bad factoring, and straight-up poorly written components is where it’s really at. Doing a big rename for rename sake alone does more harm than it is good, sometimes. Some of us have big patches in

  1   2   >