+1 nb
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:45 PM Jake Luciani wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:37 PM Benedict Elliott Smith <
> bened...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On 16/06/2020, 22:23, "Nate McCall" wrote:
> >
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:19 AM Joshua
+1 nb, thanks for everyone's work on this!
From: Jordan West
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 8:09 PM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
+1 nb
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:45 PM Jake Luciani wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue,
+1 (binding)
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 18:19, Joshua McKenzie wrote:
> Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> I propose the following:
>
>1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of
I'll take attribution for the delay in comment on 15299; this was in part a
case of a pressing need to investigate a potential 3.0 data resurrection issue
drawing attention from 4.0.
I agree with the statement that we shouldn't consider protocol V5 ready for
finalization in its current form.
Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
I propose the following:
1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of day 6/23/20)
unless there's a lot of feedback on the wiki we didn't get on gdoc
+1 non-binding.
Thanks for the work on this!
> On Jun 16, 2020, at 11:31 AM, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
>
> +1 (pmc, binding)
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:19 AM Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
>
>> Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
>>
>>
+1 (pmc, binding)
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:19 AM Joshua McKenzie
wrote:
> Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> I propose the following:
>
>1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:19 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote:
>
> Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> I propose the following:
>
>1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of
>
> CASSANDRA-15299 - this should be a blocker for v5,
Could you explain a little more about this? I'm missing context.
punting these features don’t really get 4.0.0 released any faster.
GA, no. Beta, where we have a large call to arms to get broad user testing
and adoption in QA and dev
I wanted to open up a discussion about optionality of a few tickets for
4.0. The three I'm specifically thinking of here are:
1) CASSANDRA-15146: Transition TLS server configuration options are overly
complex
2) CASSANDRA-14825: Expose table schema for drivers
3) CASSANDRA-15299: CASSANDRA-13304
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:32 AM Jeremiah D Jordan
wrote:
> +1 non-binding.
>
> Thanks for the work on this!
>
> > On Jun 16, 2020, at 11:31 AM, Jeff Jirsa wrote:
> >
> > +1 (pmc, binding)
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:19 AM Joshua McKenzie
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Added
CASSANDRA-15146 and CASSANDRA-14825 both can be rolled out and be backwards
compatible, so 4.0 vs 4.1 is fine to me
CASSANDRA-15299 - this should be a blocker for v5, so if this was punted out of
4.0 for any reason, we should also disable v5 protocol. About it being a
blocker for beta, since
+1 (non-binding)
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 13:24, Brandon Williams wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:19 AM Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
> >
> > Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:24 PM Brandon Williams wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:19 AM Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
> >
> > Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
> >
So, if it helps matters: I am explicitly -1 the prior version of this work due
to the technical concerns expressed here and on the ticket. So we either need
to revert that patch or incorporate 15299.
On 16/06/2020, 21:48, "Mick Semb Wever" wrote:
>
> 2) Alternatively, it's been 3
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:19 AM Joshua McKenzie
wrote:
> Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> I propose the following:
>
>1. We leave the vote open for 1 week (close at end of
inline
> On Jun 16, 2020, at 11:01 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote:
>
>>
>> CASSANDRA-15299 - this should be a blocker for v5,
>
> Could you explain a little more about this? I'm missing context.
V5 added checksumming but had 2 main issues; lack of header checksum, and
checksum was on the
>
> we still produce incorrect results as shown by CASSANDRA-15313; this is a
> correctness issue, so must be a blocker for v5 protocol.
That makes complete sense; I'd somehow missed the incorrect results aspect
in trying to get context on the work. I'd be eager to hear about progress
on it as
+1
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:37 PM Benedict Elliott Smith
wrote:
> +1
>
> On 16/06/2020, 22:23, "Nate McCall" wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:19 AM Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
>
> > Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
> >
> >
>
>
> 2) Alternatively, it's been 3 years, 4 months, 13 days since the release of
> 3.10.0 (the last time we added new features to the DB)
>
We did tick-tock, pushing feature releases too quickly, and without
supporting them for long enough to get stable. And then we've done "a la no
feature
+1
On 16/06/2020, 22:23, "Nate McCall" wrote:
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:19 AM Joshua McKenzie
wrote:
> Added unratified draft to the wiki here:
>
>
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance
>
> I
Inline
> On Jun 16, 2020, at 2:17 PM, Joshua McKenzie wrote:
>
>>
>> we still produce incorrect results as shown by CASSANDRA-15313; this is a
>> correctness issue, so must be a blocker for v5 protocol.
>
> That makes complete sense; I'd somehow missed the incorrect results aspect
> in trying
> Further, we have thousands of tests across all our suites
I think most here would agree that our testing remains inadequate, and that
this (modest, even in pure numerical terms for such a large project) number of
often poorly-written unit tests does not really change that fact.
Most of the
I completely respect and agree with the need for a drumbeat to change our
culture around testing and quality; I also agree we haven't done much to
materially change that uniquely to 4.0. The 40_quality_testing epic is our
first step in that direction though I have some personal concerns about
24 matches
Mail list logo
