Re: [VOTE] Branching Change for 4.0 Freeze

2018-07-12 Thread Josh McKenzie
-0. Agree w/Gary, but not willing to die on this hill. We'll see how it goes. On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:46 PM sankalp kohli wrote: > merging non code will be allowed correct > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:41 AM Stefan Podkowinski > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > (assuming merging patches on

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-09 Thread Josh McKenzie
;> > >>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:03 AM Jonathan Haddad > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I don't see how changing the process and banning feature commits is > >>>> going to be any help to the project. There may be a couple committers

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-09 Thread Josh McKenzie
t; for > > months. I think not having your patch reviewed for months is more > > discouraging than following the community and helping with stability of > > 4.0. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 3:02 PM Josh McKenzie > wrote: > > > >>

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-03 Thread Josh McKenzie
ldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_thelastpickle_tlp-2Dstress=DwIFaQ=adz96Xi0w1RHqtPMowiL2g=qK2RkRAsGtixYf0IgKlRBYLfTrXyOKED9OOTyMVvDf4=l_G2ByhfCyu3k9TzNVqiagdVQ8vOMJqHZvDq_JKvbiQ=f8gf_JCP6JRQIRkL_1R_zJOS_6gdAAsLleDr2PZHppE= > > > > > Jon > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:28 PM J

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

2018-07-03 Thread Josh McKenzie
Why not just branch a 4.0-rel and bugfix there and merge up while still accepting new features or improvements on trunk? I don't think the potential extra engagement in testing will balance out the atrophy and discouraging contributions / community engagement we'd get by deferring all

Re: In need of reviewers

2018-05-11 Thread Josh McKenzie
May be easier to just provide a link to the JQL, since there's quite a few more tickets than just what you've mentioned above:

Re: Evolving the client protocol

2018-04-28 Thread Josh McKenzie
Mick - reference Scylla's recent blog post where Dor speaks directly about the majority of their users migrating there from the Apache Cassandra ecosystem. This isn't about business concerns being first, this is about community concerns being first. On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 7:49 AM, mck

Re: Evolving the client protocol

2018-04-23 Thread Josh McKenzie
Apologies Nate - didn't realize I'd overlapped with you stepping in and trying to bring us all back to reason. I'll take my leave of the conversation at this point. :) On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > > Datastax, Apple, Instaclstr, >

Re: Evolving the client protocol

2018-04-23 Thread Josh McKenzie
t face value with this claim. On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 8:54 PM Dor Laor <d...@scylladb.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > it's not > > > reasonable to expect Scylla to contribute > > > suc

Re: Evolving the client protocol

2018-04-23 Thread Josh McKenzie
> it's not > reasonable to expect Scylla to contribute > such a huge effort to the C* server But it's reasonable that a major portion of Scylla's business model is profiting off those huge efforts other companies have made? Seems a little hypocritical to me. On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 8:18 PM Dor

Re: Evolving the client protocol

2018-04-22 Thread Josh McKenzie
> The drivers are not part of Cassandra, so what "the server" is for drivers is > up to their maintainer. I'm pretty sure the driver communities don't spend a lot of time worrying about their Scylla compatibility. That's your cross to bear. On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Ariel Weisberg

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

2018-04-10 Thread Josh McKenzie
> > 50'ish days is too short to draw a line in the sand, > especially as people balance work obligations with Cassandra feature > development. What's a reasonable alternative / compromise for this? And what non-disruptive-but-still-large patches are in flight that we would want to delay the line

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

2018-04-09 Thread Josh McKenzie
> > If they're not close to finished now why even consider them for the 4.0 > release? Merging in major features at the end of a release cycle is not the path to stability, imo. On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Jonathan Haddad wrote: > There's always more stuff to try to

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

2018-04-05 Thread Josh McKenzie
gt; > >> > 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 P

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

2018-04-05 Thread Josh McKenzie
an take a look on 1st June how things are then decide if we want to > freeze it and whats in and whats out. > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:31 AM, Ariel Weisberg <ar...@weisberg.ws> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> +1 to having a feature freeze date. June 1st is earlier than I would

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

2018-04-05 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 here for June 1. On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Jason Brown wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Blake Eggleston > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On 4/4/18, 5:48 PM, "Jeff Jirsa" wrote: > > > > Earlier than I’d have

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

2018-04-04 Thread Josh McKenzie
> > This discussion was always about the release strategy. There is no > separation between the release strategy for 4.0 and the release strategy > for the project, they are the same thing and what is intended to be > discussed here. Not trying to be pedantic here, but the email thread is titled

Re: Roadmap for 4.0

2018-04-03 Thread Josh McKenzie
> > A hard date for a feature freeze makes sense, a hard date for a release > does not. Strongly agree. We should also collectively define what "Done" looks like post freeze so we don't end up in bike-shedding hell like we have in the past. On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Jeff Jirsa

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

2018-03-23 Thread Josh McKenzie
ave to make a >> hard decision if the situation arises, but just something to keep in mind. >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 5:39 AM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > > >> > > 3) Release 4.0 for Java 8, *optionally* bra

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

2018-03-23 Thread Josh McKenzie
> > 3) Release 4.0 for Java 8, *optionally* branch 4.1 for Java 11 later This seems like the best of our bad options, with the addition of "optionally". On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Gerald Henriksen wrote: > On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 04:54:23 +, you wrote: > > >I think

Re: Paying off tech debt and correctly naming things

2018-03-22 Thread Josh McKenzie
> Some of us have big patches in flight, things that actually > pay off some technical debt, and dealing with such renames is rebase hell :\ For sure, but with a code-base this old / organically grown, I expect this will always be the case. If we're talking something as simple as an intellij

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

2018-03-21 Thread Josh McKenzie
> Even if you are not running say Debian, or RedHat, those distributions > will be backporting critical fixes to their JVMs; This work is going > to be done, and will be available to anyone. This would certainly mitigate a lot of the core problems with the new release model. Has there been any

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

2018-03-21 Thread Josh McKenzie
dependencies no longer function and now it's not just minor fixes >> it's >> >>>>> bringing in who knows what in terms of updated dependencies. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I think in some cases we are going to need to take a release w

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

2018-03-21 Thread Josh McKenzie
run a >>>>>> quick smoke test with the JDKs we are claiming to support and >>>>>> asynchronously run all the tests on the rather large matrix that now >>>>> exists. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ariel >>>>>> >>&g

Re: [DISCUSS] java 9 and the future of cassandra on the jdk

2018-03-20 Thread Josh McKenzie
Need a little clarification on something: > 2) always release cassandra on a LTS version combined with: > 3) keep trunk on the lasest jdk version, assumming we release a major > cassandra version close enough to a LTS release. Wouldn't that potentially leave us in a situation where we're ready

Re: A JIRA proposing a seperate repository for the online documentation

2018-03-19 Thread Josh McKenzie
And to be explicit about this: I'm going to withdraw from this conversation now. I don't think we're generating sufficient signal in this dialog compared to the noise. Thanks for the enthusiasm and input Kenneth. On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org>

Re: A JIRA proposing a seperate repository for the online documentation

2018-03-19 Thread Josh McKenzie
he website. This is a public website; > not an internal site for coders. > > Kenneth Brotman > > -Original Message- > From: Josh McKenzie [mailto:jmcken...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 7:42 AM > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: Re: A JIRA proposin

Re: A JIRA proposing a seperate repository for the online documentation

2018-03-19 Thread Josh McKenzie
omplete pages. Show me one quality open source Apache > site. Wake up. Raise your bar! Engineers shouldn't speak in the language > of mediocrity. > > Kenneth Brotman > > -----Original Message- > From: Josh McKenzie [mailto:jmcken...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, March 19, 20

Re: Debug logging enabled by default since 2.2

2018-03-19 Thread Josh McKenzie
> > In a way the real issue might be that we don’t have nightly performance > runs that would make an accidentally introduced debug statement obvious. First off, very much this. Secondly, IMO it's inconsistent to leave / use assertions in a code-base as a mix of preconditions and assertions but

Re: A JIRA proposing a seperate repository for the online documentation

2018-03-19 Thread Josh McKenzie
> > I've been writing html a long time; since about 1990. You're asking me to > learn a weird little program, a static site generator just to change > something I can already do without using a program at all. You're one person among a community of back-end Java devs. If you want people to

Re: NVIDIA TESLA: The World's Most Advance Data Center GPU's for accelerating demanding HPC workloads

2018-03-16 Thread Josh McKenzie
> > It's off topic if there aren't any C* uses but I wasn't (still not sure) > there aren't. Maybe you're missing out. This dev list is for the development of C*. The type of discussion on this email thread should be kept to user@. On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Kenneth Brotman <

Re: Cassandra Needs to Grow Up by Version Five!

2018-02-21 Thread Josh McKenzie
There's a disheartening amount of "here's where Cassandra is bad, and here's what it needs to do for me for free" happening in this thread. This is open-source software. Everyone is *strongly encouraged* to submit a patch to move the needle on *any* of these things being complained about in this

Re: Release votes

2018-02-15 Thread Josh McKenzie
he test results, that enforces it. > > -- > Jeff Jirsa > > > > On Feb 15, 2018, at 9:49 AM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > What would it take for us to get green utest/dtests as a blocking part of > > the release process? i

Re: [VOTE] (Take 3) Release Apache Cassandra 3.11.2

2018-02-15 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Jason Brown wrote: > I ran the unit tests and they are green: > https://circleci.com/gh/jasobrown/workflows/cassandra/ > tree/3.11.2-candidate-2 > > +1. Thanks, Michael. > > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Nate McCall

Re: [VOTE] (Take 2) Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.16

2018-02-15 Thread Josh McKenzie
What would it take for us to get green utest/dtests as a blocking part of the release process? i.e. "for any given SHA, here's a link to the tests that passed" in the release vote email? That being said, +1. On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Nate McCall wrote: > +1 > > On

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.20

2018-02-13 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 On Feb 13, 2018 12:19 PM, "Jason Brown" wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Marcus Eriksson > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Aleksey Yeshchenko > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > — > > > AY

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.2.12

2018-02-13 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 On Feb 13, 2018 12:19 PM, "Jason Brown" wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Jon Haddad wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > > > On Feb 13, 2018, at 7:21 AM, Marcus Eriksson > wrote: > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 13,

Re: [VOTE] (Take 2) Release Apache Cassandra 3.11.2

2018-02-13 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 On Feb 13, 2018 9:36 AM, "Gary Dusbabek" wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:40 PM, Michael Shuler > wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.11.2. > > > > sha1: 8a5e88f635fdb984505a99a553b5799cedccd06d > > Git: > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.16

2018-02-13 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 On Feb 13, 2018 9:20 AM, "Marcus Eriksson" wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Aleksey Yeshchenko > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > — > > AY > > > > On 12 February 2018 at 20:31:23, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) > > wrote: > > > > I

Re: CDC usability and future development

2018-01-31 Thread Josh McKenzie
> > CDC provides only the mutation as opposed to the full column value, which > tends to be of limited use for us. Applications might want to know the full > column value, without having to issue a read back. We also see value in > being able to publish the full column value both before and after

Re: Flakey Dtests

2017-11-27 Thread Josh McKenzie
> > I fixed one CDC uTest, please review:https://issues.apache. > org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14066 Thanks for taking that Jay! I ended up buried on things last week and am OOO this week so won't be able to get to these until next week at the earliest. Also, it just came up that we somehow

Re: where can i buy cassandra spring applications,

2017-10-17 Thread Josh McKenzie
This is the mailing list for development of Apache Cassandra, not a place to find purchase options for product stacks based on the project. On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Lutaya Shafiq Holmes < lutayasha...@gmail.com> wrote: > where can i buy cassandra spring applications, > > I need to

Re: Proposal to retroactively mark materialized views experimental

2017-10-04 Thread Josh McKenzie
gt; feature rather than admitting it was merged in prematurely? I’d rather > come clean and avoid future problems, and give people the opportunity to > stop using MVs rather than let them keep taking risks they’re unaware of. > This is incredibly irresponsible in my opinion. > > >

Re: Proposal to retroactively mark materialized views experimental

2017-10-04 Thread Josh McKenzie
> > Oh, come on. You're being disingenuous. Not my intent. MV's (and SASI, for example) are fairly well isolated; we have a history of other changes that are much more broadly and higher impact risk-wise across the code-base. If I were an operator and built a critical part of my business on a

Re: Proposal to retroactively mark materialized views experimental

2017-10-04 Thread Josh McKenzie
testing. > > Many of these things were agreed as prerequisites for release of 3.0, but > ultimately they were not delivered. > > I do, however, absolutely agree with Sylvain that we need to minimise > surprise in a patch version. > > > On 4 Oct 2017, at 08:58, Josh

Re: Proposal to retroactively mark materialized views experimental

2017-10-04 Thread Josh McKenzie
> and providing a feature we don't fully understand, have not fully documented the caveats of, let alone discovered all the problems with nor had that knowledge percolate fully into the wider community. There appear to be varying levels of understanding of the implementation details of MV's (that

Re: Proposal to retroactively mark materialized views experimental

2017-10-03 Thread Josh McKenzie
To clarify: > > * There's no way to determine if a view is out of sync with the base table. > * If you do determine that a view is out of sync, the only way to fix it > is to drop and rebuild the view. In this case, 'out of sync' means 'you lost data', since the current design + repair should

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.11.1

2017-10-03 Thread Josh McKenzie
flipped to -1 myself :\ > > — > AY > > On 3 October 2017 at 10:11:46, Josh McKenzie (jmcken...@apache.org) wrote: > > Given there's a patch attached to > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13929, there's little > sense > in us rolling a release with a known

Re: Proposal to retroactively mark materialized views experimental

2017-10-03 Thread Josh McKenzie
> there was "some" reason that even major changes had to be > squeezed into 3.0 before it was released The TL;DR is: having One Version to Rule Them All forces a slew of changes into majors only, since bumping the MessagingService Version has far-reaching impacts. Reference:

Re: Proposal to retroactively mark materialized views experimental

2017-10-03 Thread Josh McKenzie
> CDC sounds like it is in the same basket, but it already has the > `cdc_enabled` yaml flag which defaults false. I went this route because I was incredibly wary of changing the CL code and wanted to shield non-CDC users from any and all risk I reasonably could. I don't know of any outstanding

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.11.1

2017-10-03 Thread Josh McKenzie
Given there's a patch attached to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13929, there's little sense in us rolling a release with a known leak just to re-roll another in < 24 hours if we can get a reviewer on that. On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:11 AM, Steinmaurer, Thomas <

Re: Proposal to retroactively mark materialized views experimental

2017-10-02 Thread Josh McKenzie
"Nobody is talking about removing MVs." Not precisely true for this email thread: "but should there be some point in the future where we consider removing them from the code base unless they have gotten significant improvement as well?" IMO a .yaml change requirement isn't materially different

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.15

2017-10-02 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > +1 > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Michael Shuler > wrote: > > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.15. > > > > sha1: b32a9e6452c78e6ad08e371314bf1ab7492d0773 > > Git: > >

Re: Proposal to retroactively mark materialized views experimental

2017-10-01 Thread Josh McKenzie
> > I think committing 8099, or at the very least, parts of it, behind an > experimental flag would have been the right thing to do. With a major refactor like that, it's a staggering amount of extra work to have a parallel re-write of core components of a storage engine accessible in parallel to

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.2.11

2017-09-28 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote: > +1 > > — > AY > > On 28 September 2017 at 19:41:13, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) > wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.11. > > sha1: c510e001481637e1f74d9ad176f8dc3ab7ebd1e3

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.19

2017-09-28 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote: > +1 > > — > AY > > On 28 September 2017 at 19:12:19, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) > wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.1.19. > > sha1: 428eaa3e37cab7227c81fdf124d29dfc1db4257c

Re: Why Cassandra unit test run skips some of it?

2017-09-21 Thread Josh McKenzie
It at least skips the CDC* tests unless you use the test-cdc target, as it needs some different .yaml configurations so runs as a separate job. Not sure about any other skips. On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Tyagi, Preetika wrote: > Hi all, > > I downloaded and built

Re: State of Materialized Views

2017-07-25 Thread Josh McKenzie
Status of above is on our collective radars. As always, interleaving reviews with other work is a challenge. On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Nate McCall wrote: > > > > We're working on the following MV-related issues in the 4.0 time-frame: > > CASSANDRA-13162 > >

Re: State of Materialized Views

2017-07-24 Thread Josh McKenzie
> wrote: > Hi Josh, > > Who is "we" in this case? > > Best, > Ben > > 2017-07-24 15:41 GMT+02:00 Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > The initial contributors turned their back on MVs > > > > >

Re: State of Materialized Views

2017-07-24 Thread Josh McKenzie
> > The initial contributors turned their back on MVs We're working on the following MV-related issues in the 4.0 time-frame: CASSANDRA-13162 CASSANDRA-13547 CASSANDRA-13127 CASSANDRA-13409 CASSANDRA-12952 CASSANDRA-13069 CASSANDRA-12888 We're also keeping our eye on

Re: [DISCUSS] Implementing code quality principles, and rules (was: Code quality, principles and rules)

2017-03-27 Thread Josh McKenzie
How do we plan on verifying #4? Also, root-cause to tie back new code that introduces flaky tests (i.e. passes on commit, fails 5% of the time thereafter) is a non-trivial pursuit (thinking #2 here), and a pretty common problem in this environment. On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Nate McCall

Re: Testing and jira tickets

2017-03-10 Thread Josh McKenzie
> > I think we'd be able to figure out the one of them causing a regression > on the day after. That sounds great in theory. In practice, that doesn't happen unless one person steps up and makes themselves accountable for it. For reference, take a look at:

Re: committing performance patches without performance numbers

2017-03-10 Thread Josh McKenzie
The elephant in the room to me is what Ariel said: > > What about all the commits that don't intend to have a performance impact > but do? On top of that, it's all well and good to microbench the change you make in a vacuum but what happens when the resource usage implications of that change

Re: How to read CDC from Cassandra?

2017-02-17 Thread Josh McKenzie
1) What is exactly written to the commit log? Is it just the id or the whole of the object? It's a raw commit log, so the entire serialized mutation 2) If its just the IDs of the inserted/modified row, then is the client expected to read the whole object from the ID? see 1 3) If its the entire

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.2.9

2017-02-16 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Michael Shuler wrote: > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.9. > > sha1: 70a08f1c35091a36f7d9cc4816259210c2185267 > Git: > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a= >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.17

2017-02-16 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Michael Shuler wrote: > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.1.17. > > sha1: 943db2488c8b62e1fbe03b132102f0e579c9ae17 > Git: > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a= >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.11

2017-02-16 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Michael Shuler wrote: > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.11. > > sha1: 338226e042a22242645ab54a372c7c1459e78a01 > Git: > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a= >

Re: Have a CDC commitLog process option in Cassandra

2017-02-14 Thread Josh McKenzie
be we could contribute to. Also we're back porting CDC feature to > 3.0 internally, any suggestions would be appreciated. > > Thanks, > Jay > > > On 2/10/17 5:39 AM, Josh McKenzie wrote: > >> The primary reason I avoided integrating a daemon into the Cassandra >> pro

Re: Have a CDC commitLog process option in Cassandra

2017-02-10 Thread Josh McKenzie
The primary reason I avoided integrating a daemon into the Cassandra process was the increase in heap pressure and further muddying of the profile of heap usage. We've already seen that mixing read/write, compaction, streaming, and repair in the same JVM causes a nasty mix of allocation patterns

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.10 (Take 5)

2017-02-01 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Michael Shuler wrote: > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.10. > > sha1: 3cf415279c171fe20802ad90f181eed7da04c58d > Git: > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a= > shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.10-tentative

Re: [VOTE] 3.X branch feature freeze

2017-01-13 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Blake Eggleston wrote: > +1 > > > On January 13, 2017 at 12:38:55 PM, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) > wrote: > > +1 to freeze with this clarified branch situation. > > -- > Michael > > On 01/13/2017 11:53 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko

Re: Per blockng release on dtest

2017-01-10 Thread Josh McKenzie
er confusion and would be the exact > same contents as a 3.11 release versioned package set anyway. > > -- > Michael > > On 01/10/2017 11:18 AM, Josh McKenzie wrote: >> | If someone tries to upgrade 3.10 to whatever 4.0 ends up being I >> think they will hit the

Re: Per blockng release on dtest

2017-01-10 Thread Josh McKenzie
>> > >> Are we good for 3.10 after we get those cleaned up? > >> > >> Ariel, you made reference to: > >> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/commit/c612cd8d7dbd24888c216ad53f974686b88dd601 >> > >> Do we need to re-open an issue to have this applied

Re: Per blockng release on dtest

2017-01-10 Thread Josh McKenzie
Ariel, you made reference to: > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/commit/c612cd8d7dbd24888c216ad53f9746 > 86b88dd601 > > Do we need to re-open an issue to have this applied to 3.10 and add it > to the above list? > > > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Josh McKen

Re: Wrapping up tick-tock

2017-01-10 Thread Josh McKenzie
ses from now on, with all new feature > development moving to trunk from now on. > > This should allow us to finally stabilise 3.X so that we can get all test > jobs to green. > > -- > AY > > On 10 January 2017 at 16:36:43, Josh McKenzie (jmcken...@apache.org) > wrote:

Re: Wrapping up tick-tock

2017-01-10 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 to 6 months. On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > I agree that 6 month seems like a reasonable compromise. > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Blake Eggleston > wrote: > > > I agree that 3.10 should be the last tick-tock

Re: Per blockng release on dtest

2017-01-10 Thread Josh McKenzie
at rapid feedback and triaging combined with releases blocked > by the stuff individual contributors have broken is the way to more > consistent releases both schedule wise and quality wise. > > Regarding delaying 3.10? Who exactly is the consumer that is chomping at > the bit to get an

Re: Per blockng release on dtest

2017-01-10 Thread Josh McKenzie
First, I think we need to clarify if we're blocking on just testall + dtest or blocking on *all test jobs*. If the latter, upgrade tests are the elephant in the room: http://cassci.datastax.com/view/cassandra-3.11/job/cassandra-3.11_dtest_upgrade/lastCompletedBuild/testReport/ Do we have

Re: Failed Dtest will block cutting releases

2016-11-21 Thread Josh McKenzie
Caveat: I'm strongly in favor of us blocking a release on a non-green test board of either utest or dtest. > put something in prod which is known to be broken in obvious ways In my experience the majority of fixes are actually shoring up low-quality / flaky tests or fixing tests that have been

Re: Broader community involvement in 4.0 (WAS Re: Rough roadmap for 4.0)

2016-11-12 Thread Josh McKenzie
> > I strongly feel that there should be a better way e.g. a summary field in > JIRA which filters out the discussions, arguments, solutions etc.and just > crisply summarizes the problem, solution under discussion and the current > status. I've personally found that attaching a design doc for

Re: Cleanup after yourselves please

2016-10-18 Thread Josh McKenzie
> > tests hastily and messly commented out line by line (*whyy?*) Couldn't we use /* */ comments instead of every single line one by one? When Jake and I were mass porting unit tests for 8099, I know I used idea's shortcut (ctrl + /) to block comment out things that wouldn't compile while

Re: Failing tests 2016-08-15 [cassandra-3.9]

2016-08-16 Thread Josh McKenzie
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 wrote: > === > testall: 1 failure >

Re: A proposal to move away from Jira-centric development

2016-08-15 Thread Josh McKenzie
2 thoughts: 1: I'd hate to see our daily test email getting lost in a flood of jira ticket opening / commenting on trivial day-to-day work. I already have email filters for those from the JIRA feed and, while I could also set up filters on this list, that's an extra burden to participation for

Failing tests 2016-08-09 [cassandra-3.9]

2016-08-09 Thread Josh McKenzie
Today's unpleasantry: upgrade tests failed to run. This makes failure to run to completion on 4 of the last 10 runs. We should probably look into stabilizing this test environment and/or the tests if tests are causing the full job to fail as a failed run is essentially the worst result we can get

Failing tests 2016-08-08 [cassandra-3.9]

2016-08-08 Thread Josh McKenzie
Summary: Somewhat rough day. While testall at 1 failure is palatable, we have a pair of new regressions and a mistagged failure on dtests, as well as a difficult to track down failure. novnode tests failed to run entirely and we have a lot of noise on upgrade tests due to failures

Failing tests 2016-08-04 [cassandra-3.9]

2016-08-04 Thread Josh McKenzie
Trying out (yet another) new format since the last one came through wrapped. +---++ | Test | Notes| +---++ |

Failing tests 2016-08-03 [cassandra-3.9]

2016-08-03 Thread Josh McKenzie
Summary: Somewhat messy day, but I believe things should look less noisy tomorrow so we can get a better view of what we have left to a stable board. Going to try a slightly new format: [Failures] testall: 1 dtest: 0 novnode_dtest: 17 upgrade: 110

Re: when are we moving from SEDA to TPC?

2016-08-03 Thread Josh McKenzie
Reference: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10993 On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Kant Kodali wrote: > when are we moving from SEDA to TPC? any timeline or something that I can > look out for? >

Failing tests 2016-07-27 [cassandra-3.9]

2016-07-27 Thread Josh McKenzie
Multiple reports today that the apache mailing list is Not Impressed with my html formatted email. So plain text it is! Let me know if this one comes through like garbage. testall: All pass! _novnode_dtest: rebuild_test.TestRebuild.simple_rebuild_test CASSANDRA-11678, ymorishita,

Failing Tests 2016-07-26 [cassandra-3.9]

2016-07-26 Thread Josh McKenzie
So today's report looks a little rough. Had the following come up: - Extensive timeouts on testall. We've seen this before and a re-run usually resolves it. Do we think this might be a provisioning / hardware limitation problem? Are the tests too long / too close to the boundary on

Failing tests 2016-07-25 [cassandra-3.9]

2016-07-25 Thread Josh McKenzie
please let me know if you're interested in being included in a list of contributors to help out with test failures and whether you'd prefer unit test only or are ok with dtests and python work. The more contributors we have engaged in this process the more stable our code-base can become. Thanks. ~Josh McKenzie

Re: State of Unit tests (1 out of 100 passes in trunk)

2016-07-21 Thread Josh McKenzie
Yeah, unfortunately right now we're in clean-up / debt mode when it comes to shoring up the quality of tests in the code-base, as well as the stability of CI. Once we're consistently all-green it should be much easier to figure out who to point fingers at when things fail. :) On Thu, Jul 21,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.8

2016-07-20 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Michael Shuler wrote: > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.8. > > sha1: c3ded0551f538f7845602b27d53240cd8129265c > Git: > > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.8-tentative >

Re: State of Unit tests (1 out of 100 passes in trunk)

2016-07-20 Thread Josh McKenzie
I've recently started a hard push for getting test tickets prioritized and assigned to various contributors, and I'm pushing for us to have a consistent green test board for 3.9. While I'm not on the PMC so can't binding -1 a release vote, I'd non-binding -1 3.9 if we don't have stable tests.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.2.7

2016-07-01 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Jake Luciani wrote: > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.7. > > sha1: 092054170ec3daf92ec494a0db295037d3563229 > Git: > > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.2.7-tentative >

Re: Better code review

2016-06-15 Thread Josh McKenzie
We had a pretty long conversation about this very topic on the dev list awhile ago (search for "Discussion: reviewing larger tickets" on the mailing list). I think the final conclusion was that having the back-and-forth via JIRA helped codify some of the design decisions that took place during

Re: Unit tests in IDE

2016-06-09 Thread Josh McKenzie
Does ant generate-idea-files cover this? On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Jan Kotek wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to run and debug unit tests directly in Intellij Idea. > Current Ant runner does not work for me. > > I

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.6 (Attempt #2)

2016-06-02 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.6. > > sha1: 8d22d9fd1842c59ea65a3793aceb5a78c5852351 > Git: > > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.6-tentative > Artifacts:

Re: How to debug a unit test?

2016-05-20 Thread Josh McKenzie
You doing something like GCJ with gdb? Reference tutorial. Having said that, I'd recommend using intellij idea . On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Oleksandr Petrov < oleksandr.pet...@gmail.com> wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.6

2016-05-11 Thread Josh McKenzie
+1 On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Jake Luciani wrote: > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.6. > > sha1: 52447873a361647a5e80c547adea9cf5ee85254a > Git: > > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.6-tentative >

  1   2   >