Vote passed with 15 +1s, 3 -0s and 1 +0
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 8:48 PM Dinesh Joshi
wrote:
> +1
>
> > On Jul 13, 2018, at 7:48 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti
> >
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 nb
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:58 PM Jaydeep Chovatia <
> chovatia.jayd...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
>
+1
> On Jul 13, 2018, at 7:48 PM, Sumanth Pasupuleti
> wrote:
>
> +1 nb
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:58 PM Jaydeep Chovatia
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:46 PM sankalp kohli
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>As discussed in the thread[1], we are proposing that we will not
>>
+1 nb
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 6:58 PM Jaydeep Chovatia
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:46 PM sankalp kohli
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > As discussed in the thread[1], we are proposing that we will not
> branch
> > on 1st September but will only allow following merges into trunk.
> >
> >
+1
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:46 PM sankalp kohli
wrote:
> Hi,
> As discussed in the thread[1], we are proposing that we will not branch
> on 1st September but will only allow following merges into trunk.
>
> a. Bug and Perf fixes to 4.0.
> b. Critical bugs in any version of C*.
> c. Testing
+ 1
Thanks,
Roopa Tangirala
> On Jul 13, 2018, at 1:38 PM, Nate McCall wrote:
>
> +1
> I appreciate Gary's points, but if it's not working and/or we have a
> specific issue, we'll address it.
>
>
>
>
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:46 AM, sankalp kohli
>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>As discussed
+1
I appreciate Gary's points, but if it's not working and/or we have a
specific issue, we'll address it.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:46 AM, sankalp kohli wrote:
> Hi,
> As discussed in the thread[1], we are proposing that we will not branch
> on 1st September but will only allow following
+1,
I've come around on this, I think the long and short term benefits
will be worth it.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 11:17 AM Vinay Chella
wrote:
>
> +1 nb
>
> Regards,
> Vinay Chella
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 11:15 AM Michael Shuler
> wrote:
>
> > +0
> >
> > There are pros and cons. I do hope
+1 nb
Regards,
Vinay Chella
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 11:15 AM Michael Shuler
wrote:
> +0
>
> There are pros and cons. I do hope the pros work out and the cons aren't
> too impactful. I thought about just abstaining, but figured a "meh,
> whatever" vote was at least worth voicing.
>
> Michael
>
+0
There are pros and cons. I do hope the pros work out and the cons aren't
too impactful. I thought about just abstaining, but figured a "meh,
whatever" vote was at least worth voicing.
Michael
On 07/11/2018 04:46 PM, sankalp kohli wrote:
> Hi,
> As discussed in the thread[1], we are
+1 nb
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 09:40 Jordan West wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 5:02 AM, J. D. Jordan
> wrote:
>
> > -0 (non-binding) as well for similar reasons to Gary.
> >
> > > On Jul 12, 2018, at 8:23 AM, Gary Dusbabek
> wrote:
> > >
> > > -0
> > >
> > > I'm not
+1 (non-binding)
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 5:02 AM, J. D. Jordan
wrote:
> -0 (non-binding) as well for similar reasons to Gary.
>
> > On Jul 12, 2018, at 8:23 AM, Gary Dusbabek wrote:
> >
> > -0
> >
> > I'm not interested in sparking a discussion on this, because a) it has
> > already happened
-0 (non-binding) as well for similar reasons to Gary.
> On Jul 12, 2018, at 8:23 AM, Gary Dusbabek wrote:
>
> -0
>
> I'm not interested in sparking a discussion on this, because a) it has
> already happened and b) it seems I am in a minority. But thought I should
> at least include the
-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
merging non code will be allowed correct
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 9:41 AM Stefan Podkowinski wrote:
> +1
>
> (assuming merging patches on documentation will always be possible, as
> it's not effecting the code base)
>
>
> On 11.07.18 23:46, sankalp kohli wrote:
> > Hi,
> > As discussed in
+1
(assuming merging patches on documentation will always be possible, as
it's not effecting the code base)
On 11.07.18 23:46, sankalp kohli wrote:
> Hi,
> As discussed in the thread[1], we are proposing that we will not branch
> on 1st September but will only allow following merges into
-0
I'm not interested in sparking a discussion on this, because a) it has
already happened and b) it seems I am in a minority. But thought I should
at least include the rationale for my vote:
* This proposal goes against the "scratch an itch" philosophy of making
contributions to an Apache
+1
On 12 July 2018 at 08:49, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>
> > Vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> Vote will be open for 72 hours.
+1 (non-binding)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
+1
--
Jeff Jirsa
> On Jul 11, 2018, at 2:46 PM, sankalp kohli wrote:
>
> Hi,
>As discussed in the thread[1], we are proposing that we will not branch
> on 1st September but will only allow following merges into trunk.
>
> a. Bug and Perf fixes to 4.0.
> b. Critical bugs in any version
19 matches
Mail list logo
