While the protocol's being changed, does it make sense to add in
CASSANDRA-13292 as well? Or at least, some sort of ability to choose a hash
algorithm?
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:32 PM Dinesh Joshi wrote:
> +1
>
> Dinesh
>
> > On Oct 9, 2019, at 12:41 PM, Joshua McKenzie
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
+1
Dinesh
> On Oct 9, 2019, at 12:41 PM, Joshua McKenzie wrote:
>
>>
>> each one of them is extremely low risk, which means that any validation
>> effort that has already happened won't have to be re-done
>
> +1
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:46 PM Jon Haddad wrote:
>
>> Seems reasonable,
>
> each one of them is extremely low risk, which means that any validation
> effort that has already happened won't have to be re-done
+1
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:46 PM Jon Haddad wrote:
> Seems reasonable, especially since we're in alpha mode.
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:28 AM Aleksey
Seems reasonable, especially since we're in alpha mode.
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:28 AM Aleksey Yeshchenko
wrote:
> +1; in particular since the protocol itself is still in beta
>
> > On 9 Oct 2019, at 17:26, Oleksandr Petrov
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > During NGCC/ACNA19 we've had quite a few
+1; in particular since the protocol itself is still in beta
> On 9 Oct 2019, at 17:26, Oleksandr Petrov wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> During NGCC/ACNA19 we've had quite a few conversations around the 4.0
> release. Many (minor) features and changes suggested during that time are
> possible to implement
+1
On 09/10/2019, 17:50, "Oleksandr Petrov" wrote:
Hi,
During NGCC/ACNA19 we've had quite a few conversations around the 4.0
release. Many (minor) features and changes suggested during that time are
possible to implement in 4.next without any problem. However, some changes
