Re: CASSANDRA-13241 lower default chunk_length_in_kb

2018-10-19 Thread Joshua McKenzie
> > The predominant phrased used in that thread was 'feature freeze'. At the risk of hijacking this thread, when are we going to transition from "no new features, change whatever else you want including refactoring and changing years-old defaults" to "ok, we think we have something that's stable,

Re: CASSANDRA-13241 lower default chunk_length_in_kb

2018-10-24 Thread Joshua McKenzie
have heard from so far > >>>> > >>>> WRT to changing just the default: > >>>> > >>>> +1: > >>>> Jon Haddadd > >>>> Ben Bromhead > >>>> Alain Rodriguez > >>>> Sankalp Kohli

Re: CASSANDRA-13241 lower default chunk_length_in_kb

2018-10-24 Thread Joshua McKenzie
te a collective decision. > > > > > > > > On 24 Oct 2018, at 16:27, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > > > | The risk from such a patch is very low > > If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that... ;) > > > > I'm neutral on the default change, -.5 (i.

Moving tickets out of 4.0 post freeze

2018-09-24 Thread Joshua McKenzie
We have quite a few tickets still flagged for 4.0 that aren't in keeping with the idea that the code is frozen:

Re: Measuring Release Quality

2018-09-20 Thread Joshua McKenzie
I've spent a good bit of time thinking about the above and bounced off both different ways to measure quality and progress as well as trying to influence community behavior on this topic. My advice: start small and simple (KISS, YAGNI, all that). Get metrics for pass/fail on utest/dtest/flakiness

Re: Warn about SASI usage and allow to disable them

2019-01-14 Thread Joshua McKenzie
+1 on config change, +1 on disabling, and so long as the comments make the limitations and risks extremely clear, I'm fine w/out the client warning. On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:28 PM Andrés de la Peña wrote: > I mean disabling the creation of new SASI indices with CREATE INDEX > statement, the

Re: [VOTE] Change Jira Workflow

2018-12-18 Thread Joshua McKenzie
+1 On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:30 AM Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote: > 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

Re: JIRA Workflow Proposals

2018-12-05 Thread Joshua McKenzie
: I > > >> actually think the pruning of fields on the “new issue form” makes > > >> reporting issues easier and ensures that information we need is > > captured. > > >> Having the triage step will also provide a nice task queue for > screening

Re: Request to review feature-freeze proposed tickets

2018-11-21 Thread Joshua McKenzie
> If those tickets were sitting in patch available state prior to the freeze they *should* get in. I assume it's obvious to everyone that this should be taken on a case-by-case basis. There's at least 2 that were in that list (one of which Marcus bumped off PA) that are potentially big and hairy

Re: Request to review feature-freeze proposed tickets

2018-11-22 Thread Joshua McKenzie
Strong +1 on prioritizing community engagement 1st and caution second, though still prioritizing it. I think the right metric for us to calibrate around is that "disrupt in-flight testing cycles", i.e. if changes cause significant rework for people that have already begun testing 4.0, probably ok

Re: JIRA Workflow Proposals

2018-11-26 Thread Joshua McKenzie
1) Removal of labels: one of the strengths of the current model is flexibility for groupings of concepts to arise from a user-perspective (lhf, etc). Calcifying the label concepts into components, categories, etc. is a strict loss of functionality for users to express and categorize their concerns

Re: JIRA Workflow Proposals

2018-11-26 Thread Joshua McKenzie
fields mandatory like platform, > version, etc. We want to put less burden on someone creating a ticket but I > feel these are required for opening bugs. > > > > 2. What is the flow when a non committer does the first pass of review? > > > > > > > >> On

Re: JIRA Workflow Proposals

2018-11-26 Thread Joshua McKenzie
omote good hygiene. > > But who said our state of mind isn’t also important :) > > This isn’t something I’ll fight hard for, though, I can see it’s at least > partially a preference for cleanliness. Interested to see what others > think. > > > On 26 Nov 2018, at 17:28, Joshu

Re: [VOTE] Development Approach for Apache Cassandra Management process

2018-09-12 Thread Joshua McKenzie
is ongoing from April and not last 4 days. If enough > people think it is rushed, we can always revote. > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:24 PM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > That was four days ago, and I have a newborn at home. Not a lot of time > for > > people to respond that h

Re: [VOTE] Development Approach for Apache Cassandra Management process

2018-09-12 Thread Joshua McKenzie
> > It is important we make progress as we have been discussing this since > April!! The discussion was making progress. Just because you want things to happen faster is no reason to force an early vote. On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:04 PM sankalp kohli wrote: > Also my vote is same as Jeff. d

Re: [VOTE] Development Approach for Apache Cassandra Management process

2018-09-12 Thread Joshua McKenzie
should vote? Why was the thread dead for months and > someone comes back with a contribution and then people starts talking? > > I would have happily waited for few more days!! > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:09 PM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > > > > >

Re: Jira: Author Field

2019-04-08 Thread Joshua McKenzie
What problem are we trying to solve w/this proposed change? Is the thinking for live querying of things in progress, or is the thinking for after-the-fact research to determine who wrote a thing to reach out to them for context? If the latter, does a change in JIRA metadata give us more context

Re: Jira: Author Field

2019-04-08 Thread Joshua McKenzie
dy have, allows to more accurately reflect on the ticket > who contributed in what capacity. > > > On 8 Apr 2019, at 14:01, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > > > What problem are we trying to solve w/this proposed change? > > > > Is the thinking for live querying of things

Re: Audit logging to tables.

2019-02-28 Thread Joshua McKenzie
One of the things we've run into historically, on a *lot* of axes, is that "just put it in C*" for various functionality looks great from a user and usability perspective, and proves to be something of a nightmare from an admin / cluster behavior perspective. i.e. - cluster suffering so you're

Re: Audit logging to tables.

2019-03-01 Thread Joshua McKenzie
gt; > > > Dinesh > > > > > On Feb 28, 2019, at 6:41 AM, Joshua McKenzie > > wrote: > > > > > > One of the things we've run into historically, on a *lot* of axes, is > > that > > > "just put it in C*" for various functionalit

Re: [jira] [Updated] (CASSANDRA-14096) Cassandra 3.11.1 Repair Causes Out of Memory

2019-03-19 Thread Joshua McKenzie
remain in favour of limiting anonymous users) > > > > > >> On 19 Mar 2019, at 13:35, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > >> > >> > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >

Re: Commit-log structure changes - versions

2019-02-10 Thread Joshua McKenzie
You'll probably see the bulk of changes in CommitLogReader.java:CommitLogFormat . I tried to limit the dependencies on any internals of the

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-13 Thread Joshua McKenzie
> > a couple of people (even if I know them personally, > consider them friends and are both among the best engineers i've ever > met) going off in a room and producing something in isolation is more > or less a giant "f*k you" to the open source process and our community > as a whole. Two

Re: Stabilising Internode Messaging in 4.0

2019-04-11 Thread Joshua McKenzie
As one of the two people that re-wrote all our unit tests to try and help Sylvain get 8099 out the door, I think it's inaccurate to compare the scope and potential stability impact of this work to the truly sweeping work that went into 8099 (not to downplay the scope and extent of this work here).

Re: Jira Updates

2019-04-16 Thread Joshua McKenzie
I have no useful feedback on the changes (haven't had a chance to test them, probably won't soon) - just wanted to say thanks for taking point on this Benedict. On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 6:23 AM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > Some exciting news from the Jira changes (maybe). > > We’re done!

Re: Review ApacheCon Cassandra track submissions

2019-05-21 Thread Joshua McKenzie
1) How about we have entire PMC vote on talks? 2) We need to do t-shirts. :) Do we need corporate sponsorship for that (i.e. $$)? I can look into that if so. On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:28 AM Nate McCall wrote: > Hi Folks, > As you probably know, the ApacheCon NA CFP recently closed. We received

Re: Review ApacheCon Cassandra track submissions

2019-05-21 Thread Joshua McKenzie
Re-reading that, I realize I probably need to clarify: 1) Entire PMC *+ anyone else who wants to volunteer* vote on talks. Not just PMC. On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 8:48 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > 1) How about we have entire PMC vote on talks? > 2) We need to do t-shirts. :) Do we need cor

Re: Review ApacheCon Cassandra track submissions

2019-05-21 Thread Joshua McKenzie
e ASFs review system > for which you need an ASF account. (If someone had commit access on another > project and wanted to participate , I’d be cool with that). > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2019, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > > Re-reading that, I realize I probably need to clarify: > >

Re: Running 4.0 (trunk) on Windows

2019-05-16 Thread Joshua McKenzie
> > there is no plan from Cassandra Devs to normally support Windows in > Cassandra 4.0 I was the dev kind of single-handedly making it work on Windows; it was good up through the 3.X line but I didn't maintain it past that point to 4.0+ and don't have plans to. Reason being: the WSL approach

Re: Jira Suggestion

2019-05-15 Thread Joshua McKenzie
! On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 9:19 AM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > I should clarify that by “cleanly formatted link to GitHub” I meant > supporting exactly this. > > > On 15 May 2019, at 14:17, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > > > +1 here, though I also liked it when people

Re: Jira Suggestion

2019-05-15 Thread Joshua McKenzie
+1 here, though I also liked it when people made it an href in comments so my lazy ass busy and efficient self could click it. =/ On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:39 AM Sam Tunnicliffe wrote: > +1 > > > On 14 May 2019, at 20:10, Benedict Elliott Smith > wrote: > > > > It will be possible to insert

Re: [VOTE] remove the old wiki

2019-06-04 Thread Joshua McKenzie
Before I vote, do we have something analogous to this: https://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/ArchitectureInternals In the new wiki / docs? Looks like it's a stub: https://cassandra.apache.org/doc/latest/architecture/overview.html Having an architectural overview landing page would be critical before

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving chats to ASF's Slack instance

2019-05-28 Thread Joshua McKenzie
+1 to switching over. One less comms client + history + searchability is enough to get my vote easy. On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 5:52 PM Jonathan Ellis wrote: > I agree. This lowers the barrier to entry for new participants. Slack is > probably two orders of magnitude more commonly used now than

Re: [VOTE] remove the old wiki

2019-06-05 Thread Joshua McKenzie
Is there any other good info we should gather and include in the wiki / docs? Thinking of our bootcamp material a bunch of us put together back in the day (link: https://www.slideshare.net/joshmckenzie) Might be helpful to identify a backlog of stuff we'd like to collect and integrate and have

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

2019-05-28 Thread Joshua McKenzie
> > The unofficial rule is to not upgrade to prod till .10 is cut. FWIW, I believe it's historically .6. Which is still not a great look for the project. There's a ton of work going into testing 4.0 already. While I intuitively and anecdotally (from the people I've backchanneled with) believe

Re: "4.0: TBD" -> "4.0: Est. Q4 2019"?

2019-06-11 Thread Joshua McKenzie
a lot of progress here, but I’ve let perfect > > be the enemy of the good in getting updates out. I’ll complete that pass > > later this week. > > > > Cheers, > > > > — Scott > > > > > On May 28, 2019, at 10:48 AM, Dinesh Joshi wrote: > &g