Thanks for the feedback, given three +1s and no objections then I'll
move on to get it merged.
I'm satisfied with the code and David Capwell has completed his
review. If another contributor with more experience with how JMX is
used in the community could look (particularly somebody with operator
+1
On 06/08/2020, 10:07, "Michael Semb Wever" wrote:
> I think the pragmatic thing to do is fix it now, and I'd strongly
> prefer to do that but wanted to check if there are any objections or
> things I hadn't considered?
+1
Thanks for giving this visibility and
> I think the pragmatic thing to do is fix it now, and I'd strongly
> prefer to do that but wanted to check if there are any objections or
> things I hadn't considered?
+1
Thanks for giving this visibility and demonstrating we are serious about the
beta test cycle.
>
> I think the pragmatic thing to do is fix it now, and I'd strongly
> prefer to do that but wanted to check if there are any objections or
> things I hadn't considered?
+1 from me, should fix.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:59 AM Jon Meredith wrote:
> Following up on Mick's email about
Following up on Mick's email about interface incompatible changes,
CASSANDRA-15937 is ready for review. In my opinion, this just fixes
some bugs in CASSANDRA-7544 patch that slipped through the original
review, but before we review & merge fixes I wanted to ask if anybody
had any objections to
