+1 from me for the proposal ignoring the "where it goes". I think the
refactors proposed in it make sense no matter what, and the simulation ability
should provide some very much needed testability improvements.
In particular replacing File with Path is something we have been looking to do
>
>
> Regarding waivers, I’m not sure we’ve really agreed as a community what
> the criteria are for determining if work goes into a patch release – so I’m
> not sure it would be right to call it a waiver.
>
>
Yes, and this ties into the compatibility documentation, and how we
approach and define
Does anybody have some other concerns than the target date?
If not, I believe that we can start a vote tomorrow.
Le mer. 14 juil. 2021 à 23:18, Nate McCall a écrit :
> >
> >
> >
> > > Yes, we should perhaps remove target version from the template, and
> > > introduce guidance on describing
>
>
>
> > Yes, we should perhaps remove target version from the template, and
> > introduce guidance on describing stability impact etc.
>
> Strong +1 to remove this from the template. I got sucked into the mistake
> of conflating implementation details and implications on where it lands
> instead
Same
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 9:16 AM Brandon Williams wrote:
> I am +1 to both removal from the template and "we need this"
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 9:05 AM Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
> >
> > And I'm a +1 on the "I agree we need this".
>
>
of merge.
> >
> > The question is if there is still value in the CEP pages maintaining the
> > endeavour’s goal for when the work will be ready, but perhaps this can be
> > communicated in normal date format, and used to inform project roadmap
> > planning.
> >
&
nning.
>
>
> From: Mick Semb Wever
> Date: Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 10:41
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-10: Cluster and Code Simulations
> >
> > PRs will land soon for people to look at, but honestly we’re getting into
> > an unnecessa
mat, and used to inform project roadmap planning.
From: Mick Semb Wever
Date: Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 10:41
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-10: Cluster and Code Simulations
>
> PRs will land soon for people to look at, but honestly we’re getting into
> an unnecessary
>
> PRs will land soon for people to look at, but honestly we’re getting into
> an unnecessary tangle over target release. I think it would be a mistake to
> push this to a later release, because it is valuable and it will bring pain
> by creating divergence - but the question a CEP is meant to
o: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-10: Cluster and Code Simulations
So stepping back from the feature vs. bug and rel cycle debate (a valuable
one, but not the original purpose of this thread):
>From the CEP:
>
>- Refactor internal APIs around concurrency
re. The release lifecycle document we voted on is
> ambiguous,
> > and we all clearly take it to mean different things.
> >
> > From: Jeremiah D Jordan
> > Date: Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 15:06
> > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-10:
it to mean different things.
>
> From: Jeremiah D Jordan
> Date: Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 15:06
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-10: Cluster and Code Simulations
> Just because it is a feature for users who are developers does not mean it
> is not
Jordan
Date: Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 15:06
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-10: Cluster and Code Simulations
Just because it is a feature for users who are developers does not mean it is
not a new feature? Adding this capability is adding new functionality to what
developers
duces the highest quality outcome.
>
>
>
>
> From: Jeremiah D Jordan
> Date: Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 14:41
> To: Cassandra DEV
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-10: Cluster and Code Simulations
> I do not think fixing CASSANDRA-12126 is not a new feature. I do think
> a
d stop to patch releases,
as I do not believe this produces the highest quality outcome.
From: Jeremiah D Jordan
Date: Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 14:41
To: Cassandra DEV
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-10: Cluster and Code Simulations
I do not think fixing CASSANDRA-12126 is not a new feature. I do
ven the divergences
>> in the codebase), but I would not consider it acceptably safe (given the
>> divergence).
>>
>>
>> From: Jeremiah D Jordan
>> Date: Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 14:15
>> To: Cassandra DEV
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-10: Clust
only would it be burdensome (given the divergences in
> the codebase), but I would not consider it acceptably safe (given the
> divergence).
>
>
> From: Jeremiah D Jordan
> Date: Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 14:15
> To: Cassandra DEV
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-10: Clust
in the
codebase), but I would not consider it acceptably safe (given the divergence).
From: Jeremiah D Jordan
Date: Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 14:15
To: Cassandra DEV
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-10: Cluster and Code Simulations
I tend to agree with Paulo that a major refactoring of some internal
t significant resources in
> >> improved testing using this framework (which I very much expect) then
> >> branches that are not compatible will not benefit, likely reducing their
> >> quality; and the risk of backports will increase, due to divergence.
> >>
>
ty; and the risk of backports will increase, due to divergence.
>>
>> Altogether, I think it would be a huge mistake. But if we will be shipping
>> releases soon that can fix these aforementioned regressions, I won’t
>> campaign for it.
>>
>>
>>
&g
hink it would be a huge mistake. But if we will be shipping
> releases soon that can fix these aforementioned regressions, I won’t
> campaign for it.
>
>
>
> From: bened...@apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 13:31
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re:
dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-10: Cluster and Code Simulations
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 7:31 AM bened...@apache.org wrote:
> Furthermore, we introduced a significant performance regression in all lines
> of the software by increasing the number of LWT round-trips. Unless
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 7:31 AM bened...@apache.org wrote:
> Furthermore, we introduced a significant performance regression in all lines
> of the software by increasing the number of LWT round-trips. Unless we intend
> to leave this regression for a further year without _any_ release offering
, 13 July 2021 at 13:21
To: Cassandra DEV
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-10: Cluster and Code Simulations
> No, in my opinion the target should be 4.0.x. We are reaching for a
shippable trunk and this has no public API impacts. This work is IMO
central to achieving a shippable trunk, either way. The o
> >
> > * Pluggable schema manager (CEP pending)
> > * Pluggable filesystem (CEP pending)
> > * Pluggable authenticator for CQLSH (CASSANDRA-16456). A CEP draft can
> be
> > found at
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_G-OZCAEmDy
981 to be easily plugged into Cassandra
>
> *Memtable pluggable implementation:*
>
> * Enable Cassandra for Persistent Memory (CASSANDRA-13981)
>
>
>
>
> From: bened...@apache.org
> Date: Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 10:51
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re
-13981)
From: bened...@apache.org
Date: Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 10:51
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-10: Cluster and Code Simulations
Ach, editing code in the email editor isn’t smart when editors all have
different meanings for key combinations (accidentally hit send
the correctness of difficult but critical systems is
justification enough, whether or not we deliver a simple API as part of the CEP.
From: bened...@apache.org
Date: Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 10:43
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-10: Cluster and Code Simulations
> Sho
void test() {
Future f1 = executor.submit(() -> foo());
Future f2 = executor.submit(() -> foo());
Assert.assertTrue(f1.get() == 1 || f2.get() == 1);
}
From: Mick Semb Wever
Date: Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 10:28
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-1
>
> To achieve this, significant modifications will be required to the codebase,
> mostly cleaning up existing abstractions. Specifically, we will need to be
> able to mock executors, any blocking concurrency primitives, time, filesystem
> access and internode streaming.
>
> The work is – in
of doing so, for instance).
From: Benjamin Lerer
Date: Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 09:50
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-10: Cluster and Code Simulations
Hi Benedict, Sam,
Could you describe some of the scenarios that this new framework will allow
us to test ? They might help
Hi Benedict, Sam,
Could you describe some of the scenarios that this new framework will allow
us to test ? They might help me to understand the changes required.
The need for the changes around concurrency and file access is not obvious
to me. By consequence, I am guessing that I probably do not
Spoiler alert: I am pretty familiar with the proposal and the off-list work
that has been done toward it.
From my perspective, I have no qualms about putting this CEP up for a vote.
Having seen the potential (and to some degree, realised) benefit of this
proposal, I am
convinced of its value.
Did anyone have any thoughts on this CEP, or shall I bring it forward for a
vote also?
From: bened...@apache.org
Date: Thursday, 3 June 2021 at 20:19
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] CEP-10: Cluster and Code Simulations
Proposal for a mechanism to evaluate whole clusters, or
34 matches
Mail list logo
