I agree with Jeff that the ideal would be to reach a point where the -1 are withdrawn
Le ven. 15 oct. 2021 à 16:13, Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> a écrit : > I support adopting this CEP, and the transaction semantics, and the > incremental approach to developing transactions, so I'm +1 on all three > > I also think that it is preferrable that we get to a point where the -1 be > withdrawn, because I think it's a bad precedent to force the PMC to try to > navigate the ambiguity of some of the words in the process/procedure > documents. > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 2:08 PM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? > > > 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for > > > Cassandra? > > > 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in > > > Cassandra, leaving scope for future development? > > > > > > > > > 1. -1 > > > > There's discussions still ongoing around this CEP. I support the CEP but > > believe it is important that the community takes the patience to let > > everyone say their piece and feel that they have been heard. I do not see > > that waiting a week, or two, before another vote risks the inclusion of > > this CEP in this release cycle. I've certainly appreciated reading > through > > every question raised, and wouldn't object to the CEP page being updated > to > > include even more (but this is not a blocker for me). > > >
