Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.21

I count 7 binding +1's, 1 non-binding +1 vote, and no others, so this vote passes. I'll publish the artifacts as soon as I can. Thanks for the discussion on support life of the 2.1 branch. I will not be making any changes to the notes on the download page. Kind regards, Michael On 2/2/19 6:32 PM

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.21

+1 Den ons 6 feb. 2019 kl 10:54 skrev Benedict Elliott Smith < bened...@apache.org>: > +1, and also see no point in EOL; if we have failed to back port something > important, we should rectify it. > > > On 6 Feb 2019, at 05:09, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > > > +1 (to the release, I see no reason to for

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.21

+1, and also see no point in EOL; if we have failed to back port something important, we should rectify it. > On 6 Feb 2019, at 05:09, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > +1 (to the release, I see no reason to force this to be EOL; leaving the > branch open has zero cost, and if a serious enough patch comes

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.21

+1 (to the release, I see no reason to force this to be EOL; leaving the branch open has zero cost, and if a serious enough patch comes up, we'll likely be happy we have the option to fix it). On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 4:32 PM Michael Shuler wrote: > *EOL* release for the 2.1 series. There will be

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.21

> > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.1.21. > +1 for this release of 2.1.21 Comments: - we don't really need the checksums on gpg signature files. (Previously releases are also doing this.) I believe they can just be manually deleted from the staging nexus repository. -

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.21

We currently intent to support 2.1 with critical fixes only, which leaves some room for interpretation. As usually, people have different views, in this case on what exactly a critical fix is. If there are some patches that are potential candidates for 2.1, but haven’t been committed, then we s

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.21

Not sure we need another 2.1 release, this one included, but sure, +1 So long as the branch itself stays kinda open and most critical issues can have at least fixes for them committed, the interested parties can then keep building the artefacts manually. Once 4.0 is out we can freeze the branch

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.21

Hi Michael, What you and Jon said makes sense. You have addressed a follow up concern I had about making sure the site was updated if we go ahead with making 2.1 EOL. I'm happy to help with site changes if needed. Cheers, Anthony On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 11:31, Michael Shuler wrote: > My first c

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.21

My first couple sentences in the vote email were intended as a statement, based on a lack of concerns voiced on EOL of 2.1. I made a request for comment on EOL of 2.1 series a month ago, in "Subject: EOL 2.1 series?": https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/87ee2e3d13ea96744545ed8612496a93f8235747c4f

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.21

+1 non-binding, for the release of 2.1.21 Regarding EOL of 2.1.x, did we announce in the past that 2.1.21 would be the final release? According to the download page 2.1 is meant to be supported with critical fixes only until 4.0 is released. I suspect that

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.21

I think having the discussion around EOL is pretty important, in order to set the right expectations for the community. Looking at the commits for 2.1, there's hardly any activity going on, meaning it's effectively been EOL'ed for a long time now. I think it's better that we be honest with folks

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.21

+1 on the release of 2.1.21 (let's focus on that in the spirit of these other votes we have up right now). I don't feel the need to be absolutist about something being EOL. On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 1:47 AM Stefan Podkowinski wrote: > > What are we voting on here? Releasing the 2.1.21 candidate, or

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.21

What are we voting on here? Releasing the 2.1.21 candidate, or that 2.1 would become EOL? Please let's have separate votes on that, if you want to propose putting 2.1 EOL (which I'm strongly -1). On 03.02.19 01:32, Michael Shuler wrote: *EOL* release for the 2.1 series. There will be no new r