Re: [DISCUSS] Non Coding Committers

[Benjamin Lerer]

Thanks a lot Sharan, Patrick and Lorina.
It is a perfectly valid point that the PMC members have recognized for some
time already and are actively working on.
😊

Le mar. 8 févr. 2022 à 23:07, Lorina Poland  a écrit :

> +1 to this conversation, from a Docs wonk. :-)
>
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 1:40 PM Patrick McFadin  wrote:
>
>> Sharan has done a good job shining a spotlight on something that has
>> created a weird bottleneck in the project. Docs and the Cassandra website
>> are all in-tree, but it takes somebody who probably isn't even working on
>> those things to commit any changes. Dinesh nailed it. It's silly. I'm sure
>> the PMC can come up with a reasonable solution that can be done quickly.
>> There are a lot of us that love this project that contribute in ways that
>> don't get compiled into a jar file. This is something that needs to be
>> solved for the sake of project velocity.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 10:28 PM Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you Sharan for sharing.
>>>
>>>
 So here in Apache Cassandra I see there is a whole lot of activity
 happening around the website, marketing, project promotion, blogs, social
 media - these activities are all contributions to the project. If there are
 contributions happening in the project that need a committer to action,
 then it could make sense to consider having committers that are focussed
 around the 'non coding' parts.



>>>
>>> This is so true for us. We are spending a lot of extra time getting
>>> these non-code contributions across the finish line. The context switching
>>> and wait time involved in just one more handover, and often across time
>>> zones, is hurting. And regardless, totally agree we should be formally
>>> recognising the ongoing work that goes into these non-coding contributions.
>>>
>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-19: Trie memtable implementation

[Branimir Lambov]

If I understand this correctly, you prefer _not_ to have an option to give
the configuration explicitly in the schema. I.e. force the configurations
("templates" in current terms) to be specified in the yaml, and only allow
tables to specify which one to use among them?

This does sound at least as good to me, and I'll happily change the API.

Regards,
Branimir

On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 10:40 PM Dinesh Joshi  wrote:

> My quick reading of the code suggests that schema will override the
> operator's default preference in the YAML. In the event of a bug in the new
> implementation, there could be situation where the operator might need to
> override this via the YAML.
>
> On Feb 8, 2022, at 12:29 PM, Jeremiah D Jordan 
> wrote:
>
> I don’t really see most users touching the default implementation.  I
> would expect the main reason someone would change would be
> 1. They run into some bug that is only in one of the implementations.
> 2. They have persistent memory and so want to use
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13981
>
> Given that I doubt most people will touch it, I think it is good to give
> advanced operators the ability to have more control over switching to
> things that have new performance characteristics.  So I like the idea that
> the proposed configuration approach which allows someone to change to a new
> implementation one node at a time and only for specific tables.
>
> On Feb 8, 2022, at 2:21 PM, Dinesh Joshi  wrote:
>
> Thank you for sharing the perf test results.
>
> Going back to the schema vs yaml configuration. I am concerned users may
> pick the wrong implementation for their use-case. Is there any chance for
> us to automatically pick a MemTable implementation based on heuristics? Do
> we foresee users ever picking the existing SkipList implementation over the
> Trie Given the performance tests, it seems the Trie implementation is the
> clear winner.
>
> To be clear, I am not suggesting we remove the existing implementation. I
> am for maintaining a pluggable API for various components.
>
> Dinesh
>
> On Feb 7, 2022, at 8:39 AM, Branimir Lambov  wrote:
>
> Added some performance results to the ticket:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-17240
>
> Regards,
> Branimir
>
> On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 10:59 PM Dinesh Joshi  wrote:
>
>> This is excellent. Thanks for opening up this CEP. It would be great to
>> get some stats around GC allocation rate / memory pressure, read & write
>> latencies, etc. compared to existing implementation.
>>
>> Dinesh
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2022, at 2:13 AM, Branimir Lambov  wrote:
>>
>> The memtable pluggability API (CEP-11) is per-table to enable memtable
>> selection that suits specific workflows. It also makes full sense to permit
>> per-node configuration, both to be able to modify the configuration to suit
>> heterogeneous deployments better, as well as to test changes for
>> improvements such as this one.
>> Recognizing this, the patch comes with a modification to the API
>> 
>> that defines memtable templates in cassandra.yaml (i.e. per node) and
>> allows the schema to select a template (in addition to being able to
>> specify the full memtable configuration). One could use this e.g. by adding:
>>
>> memtable_templates:
>> trie:
>> class: TrieMemtable
>> shards: 16
>> skiplist:
>> class: SkipListMemtable
>> memtable:
>> template: skiplist
>>
>> (which defines two templates and specifies the default memtable
>> implementation to use) to cassandra.yaml and specifying  WITH memtable =
>> {'template' : 'trie'} in the table schema.
>>
>> I intend to commit this modification with the memtable API
>> (CASSANDRA-17034/CEP-11).
>>
>> Performance comparisons will be published soon.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Branimir
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 4:15 PM Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds like a great addition
>>>
>>> Can you share some of the details around gc and latency improvements
>>> you’ve observed with the list?
>>>
>>> Any specific reason the confirmation is through schema vs yaml?
>>> Presumably it’s so a user can test per table, but this changes every host
>>> in a cluster, so the impact of a bug/regression is much higher.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 10, 2022, at 1:30 AM, Branimir Lambov  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> We would like to contribute our TrieMemtable to Cassandra.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-19%3A+Trie+memtable+implementation
>>>
>>> This is a new memtable solution aimed to replace the legacy
>>> implementation, developed with the following objectives:
>>> - lowering the on-heap complexity and the ability to store memtable
>>> indexing structures off-heap,
>>> - leveraging byte order and a trie structure to lower the memory
>>> footprint and improve mutation and lookup performance.
>>>
>>> The new memtable relies on CASSANDRA-6936 to translate to and from
>>> byte-ordered representatio

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-19: Trie memtable implementation

[bened...@apache.org]

Why not have some default templates that can be specified by the schema without 
touching the yaml, but overridden in the yaml as necessary?

From: Branimir Lambov 
Date: Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 09:35
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org 
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-19: Trie memtable implementation
If I understand this correctly, you prefer _not_ to have an option to give the 
configuration explicitly in the schema. I.e. force the configurations 
("templates" in current terms) to be specified in the yaml, and only allow 
tables to specify which one to use among them?

This does sound at least as good to me, and I'll happily change the API.

Regards,
Branimir

On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 10:40 PM Dinesh Joshi 
mailto:djo...@apache.org>> wrote:
My quick reading of the code suggests that schema will override the operator's 
default preference in the YAML. In the event of a bug in the new 
implementation, there could be situation where the operator might need to 
override this via the YAML.


On Feb 8, 2022, at 12:29 PM, Jeremiah D Jordan 
mailto:jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I don’t really see most users touching the default implementation.  I would 
expect the main reason someone would change would be
1. They run into some bug that is only in one of the implementations.
2. They have persistent memory and so want to use 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13981

Given that I doubt most people will touch it, I think it is good to give 
advanced operators the ability to have more control over switching to things 
that have new performance characteristics.  So I like the idea that the 
proposed configuration approach which allows someone to change to a new 
implementation one node at a time and only for specific tables.


On Feb 8, 2022, at 2:21 PM, Dinesh Joshi 
mailto:djo...@apache.org>> wrote:

Thank you for sharing the perf test results.

Going back to the schema vs yaml configuration. I am concerned users may pick 
the wrong implementation for their use-case. Is there any chance for us to 
automatically pick a MemTable implementation based on heuristics? Do we foresee 
users ever picking the existing SkipList implementation over the Trie Given the 
performance tests, it seems the Trie implementation is the clear winner.

To be clear, I am not suggesting we remove the existing implementation. I am 
for maintaining a pluggable API for various components.

Dinesh


On Feb 7, 2022, at 8:39 AM, Branimir Lambov 
mailto:blam...@apache.org>> wrote:

Added some performance results to the ticket: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-17240

Regards,
Branimir

On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 10:59 PM Dinesh Joshi 
mailto:djo...@apache.org>> wrote:
This is excellent. Thanks for opening up this CEP. It would be great to get 
some stats around GC allocation rate / memory pressure, read & write latencies, 
etc. compared to existing implementation.

Dinesh


On Jan 18, 2022, at 2:13 AM, Branimir Lambov 
mailto:blam...@apache.org>> wrote:

The memtable pluggability API (CEP-11) is per-table to enable memtable 
selection that suits specific workflows. It also makes full sense to permit 
per-node configuration, both to be able to modify the configuration to suit 
heterogeneous deployments better, as well as to test changes for improvements 
such as this one.
Recognizing this, the patch comes with a modification to the 
API
 that defines memtable templates in cassandra.yaml (i.e. per node) and allows 
the schema to select a template (in addition to being able to specify the full 
memtable configuration). One could use this e.g. by adding:

memtable_templates:
trie:
class: TrieMemtable
shards: 16
skiplist:
class: SkipListMemtable
memtable:
template: skiplist
(which defines two templates and specifies the default memtable implementation 
to use) to cassandra.yaml and specifying  WITH memtable = {'template' : 'trie'} 
in the table schema.

I intend to commit this modification with the memtable API 
(CASSANDRA-17034/CEP-11).

Performance comparisons will be published soon.

Regards,
Branimir

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 4:15 PM Jeff Jirsa 
mailto:jji...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Sounds like a great addition

Can you share some of the details around gc and latency improvements you’ve 
observed with the list?

Any specific reason the confirmation is through schema vs yaml? Presumably it’s 
so a user can test per table, but this changes every host in a cluster, so the 
impact of a bug/regression is much higher.



On Jan 10, 2022, at 1:30 AM, Branimir Lambov 
mailto:blam...@apache.org>> wrote:

We would like to contribute our TrieMemtable to Cassandra.

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-19%3A+Trie+memtable+implementation

This is a new memtable solution aimed to replace the legacy implementation, 
developed with the following objectives:
- lowering the on-heap complexity and the ability 

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-19: Trie memtable implementation

[Bowen Song]

TBH, I don't have an opinion on the configuration. I just want to say 
that if at the end we decide the configuration in the YAML should 
override the table schema, I would like to recommend that we specifying 
a list of whitelisted (or blacklisted) "templates" in the YAML file, and 
the template chosen by the table schema is used if it's enabled, 
otherwise fallback to a default template, which could be the first 
element in the whitelist if that's used, or a separate configuration 
entry if a blacklist is used. The list should be optional in the YAML, 
and an empty list or the absent of it means everything is enabled.


Advantage of this:

1. it doesn't require the operator to configure this, as an empty or 
absent list by default enables all templates and should work fine in 
most cases.


2. it allows the operator to whitelist / blacklist any template if ever 
needed (e.g. due to a bug), and also allow them to choose a fallback option.


3. the table schema has priority as long as the chosen template is not 
explicitly disabled by the YAML.


4. it allows the operator to selectively disable some templates without 
forcing all tables to use the same template specified by the YAML.



On 09/02/2022 09:43, bened...@apache.org wrote:


Why not have some default templates that can be specified by the 
schema without touching the yaml, but overridden in the yaml as necessary?


*From: *Branimir Lambov 
*Date: *Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 09:35
*To: *dev@cassandra.apache.org 
*Subject: *Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-19: Trie memtable implementation

If I understand this correctly, you prefer _not_ to have an option to 
give the configuration explicitly in the schema. I.e. force the 
configurations ("templates" in current terms) to be specified in the 
yaml, and only allow tables to specify which one to use among them?


This does sound at least as good to me, and I'll happily change the API.

Regards,

Branimir

On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 10:40 PM Dinesh Joshi  wrote:

My quick reading of the code suggests that schema will override
the operator's default preference in the YAML. In the event of a
bug in the new implementation, there could be situation where the
operator might need to override this via the YAML.



On Feb 8, 2022, at 12:29 PM, Jeremiah D Jordan
 wrote:

I don’t really see most users touching the default
implementation.  I would expect the main reason someone would
change would be

1. They run into some bug that is only in one of the
implementations.

2. They have persistent memory and so want to use
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-13981

Given that I doubt most people will touch it, I think it is
good to give advanced operators the ability to have more
control over switching to things that have new performance
characteristics.  So I like the idea that the proposed
configuration approach which allows someone to change to a new
implementation one node at a time and only for specific tables.



On Feb 8, 2022, at 2:21 PM, Dinesh Joshi
 wrote:

Thank you for sharing the perf test results.

Going back to the schema vs yaml configuration. I am
concerned users may pick the wrong implementation for
their use-case. Is there any chance for us to
automatically pick a MemTable implementation based on
heuristics? Do we foresee users ever picking the existing
SkipList implementation over the Trie Given the
performance tests, it seems the Trie implementation is the
clear winner.

To be clear, I am not suggesting we remove the existing
implementation. I am for maintaining a pluggable API for
various components.

Dinesh



On Feb 7, 2022, at 8:39 AM, Branimir Lambov
 wrote:

Added some performance results to the ticket:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-17240

Regards,

Branimir

On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 10:59 PM Dinesh Joshi
 wrote:

This is excellent. Thanks for opening up this CEP.
It would be great to get some stats around GC
allocation rate / memory pressure, read & write
latencies, etc. compared to existing implementation.

Dinesh



On Jan 18, 2022, at 2:13 AM, Branimir Lambov
 wrote:

The memtable pluggability API (CEP-11) is
per-table to enable memtable selection
that suits specific workflows. It also makes
full sense to permit per-node configuration,
both to be able to modify the configura

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-7 Storage Attached Index

[bened...@apache.org]

> Is there some mechanism such as experimental flags, which would allow the 
> SAI-only OR support to be merged into trunk

FWIW, I’m OK with this merging to trunk, either hidden behind a CI-only flag or 
exposed to the user via some experimental flag (and a suitable NEWS.txt). We’ve 
discussed the need to periodically merge feature branches with trunk before 
they are complete. If the work is logically complete for SAI, and we’re only 
pending work to make OR consistent between SAI and non-SAI queries, I think 
that more than meets this criterion.


From: Henrik Ingo 
Date: Monday, 7 February 2022 at 12:03
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org 
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-7 Storage Attached Index
Thanks Benjamin for reviewing and raising this.

While I don't speak for the CEP authors, just some thoughts from me:

On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 11:18 AM Benjamin Lerer 
mailto:ble...@apache.org>> wrote:
I would like to raise 2 points regarding the current CEP proposal:

1. There are mention of some target versions and of the removal of SASI

At this point, we have not agreed on any version numbers and I do not feel that 
removing SASI should be part of the proposal for now.
It seems to me that we should see first the adoption surrounding SAI before 
talking about deprecating other solutions.


This seems rather uncontroversial. I think the CEP template and previous CEPs 
invite  the discussion on whether the new feature will or may replace an 
existing feature. But at the same time that's of course out of scope for the 
work at hand. I have no opinion one way or the other myself.


2. OR queries

It is unclear to me if the proposal is about adding OR support only for SAI 
index or for other types of queries too.
In the past, we had the nasty habit for CQL to provide only partialially 
implemented features which resulted in a bad user experience.
Some examples are:
* LIKE restrictions which were introduced for the need of SASI and were not 
never supported for other type of queries
* IS NOT NULL restrictions for MATERIALIZED VIEWS that are not supported 
elsewhere
* != operator only supported for conditional inserts or updates
And there are unfortunately many more.

We are currenlty slowly trying to fix those issue and make CQL a more mature 
language. By consequence, I would like that we change our way of doing things. 
If we introduce support for OR it should also cover all the other type of 
queries and be fully tested.
I also believe that it is a feature that due to its complexity fully deserves 
its own CEP.


The current code that would be submitted for review after the CEP is adopted, 
contains OR support beyond just SAI indexes. An initial implementation first 
targeted only such queries where all columns in a WHERE clause using OR needed 
to be backed by an SAI index. This was since extended to also support ALLOW 
FILTERING mode as well as OR with clustering key columns. The current 
implementation is by no means perfect as a general purpose OR support, the 
focus all the time was on implementing OR support in SAI. I'll leave it to 
others to enumerate exactly the limitations of the current implementation.

Seeing that also Benedict supports your point of view, I would steer the 
conversation more into a project management perspective:
* How can we advance CEP-7 so that the bulk of the SAI code can still be added 
to Cassandra, so that  users can benefit from this new index type, albeit 
without OR?
* This is also an important question from the point of view that this is a 
large block of code that will inevitably diverged if it's not in trunk. Also, 
merging it to trunk will allow future enhancements, including the OR syntax 
btw, to happen against trunk (aka upstream first).
* Since OR support nevertheless is a feature of SAI, it needs to be at least 
unit tested, but ideally even would be exposed so that it is possible to test 
on the CQL level. Is there some mechanism such as experimental flags, which 
would allow the SAI-only OR support to be merged into trunk, while a separate 
CEP is focused on implementing "proper" general purpose OR support? I should 
note that there is no guarantee that the OR CEP would be implemented in time 
for the next release. So the answer to this point needs to be something that 
doesn't violate the desire for good user experience.

henrik

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 4.0.2

[Dinesh Joshi]

+1 on the release

> On Feb 8, 2022, at 3:44 PM, Jeff Jirsa  wrote:
> 
> (This was a +1 on the release, to be clear, not a +1 on the sentiment below, 
> which I appreciate but still believe we should proceed with the release)
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 3:44 PM Jeff Jirsa  > wrote:
> +1
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 3:37 PM Joshua McKenzie  > wrote:
> I find myself agreeing with Jeremiah's sentiment here.
> 
> For example, we're asking people that are on 4.0.1 to make the difficult 
> choice between accepting the risk of whatever prompts an urgent release vs. 
> accepting the risk of potentially destabilizing their GA critical 
> infrastructure. The 4.0 line is regressing, at least from a CI perspective: 
> https://butler.cassandra.apache.org/#/ci/upstream/trend 
> 
> 
> I'm a -0 on this release as structured; given we discussed this exact 
> situation when we adopted the new procedures I personally accept us moving 
> forward right now and wouldn't block the release, but going forward I'd like 
> to see us cut hotfix releases based on the latest GA plus a minimal patchset 
> to address whatever urgent need a release is targeting so long as CI is in a 
> regressing state.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 3:18 PM Jeremiah D Jordan  > wrote:
> -1 nb
> 
> So we just voted on an approved the CI process page recently:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=199530280 
> 
> 
> Where we said:
> "All releases by default are expected to have a green test run on 
> ci-cassandra.apache.org  Jenkins. In 
> exceptional circumstances (security incidents, data loss, etc requiring 
> hotfix), members with binding votes on a release may choose to approve a 
> release with known failing tests.”
> 
> I do not see green CI runs recently for 4.0. 
> https://ci-cassandra.apache.org/job/Cassandra-4.0/ 
> 
> 
> If we are making this release for a security incident/data loss/hot fix 
> reason, then I would expect to see the related change set only containing 
> those patches.  But the change set in the tag here the latest 4.0-dev commits.
> 
> Do we want to be violating our goal of only releasing with green CI less than 
> a month after the vote?
> 
> -Jeremiah Jordan
> 
>> On Feb 7, 2022, at 8:14 AM, Mick Semb Wever > > wrote:
>> 
>> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 4.0.2 for release.
>> 
>> sha1: 25012d2fec1984cc9c1a352f214eb912ca4f10f5
>> 
>> Git: 
>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/4.0.2-tentative
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Maven Artifacts: 
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1255/org/apache/cassandra/cassandra-all/4.0.2/
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> The Source and Build Artifacts, and the Debian and RPM packages and 
>> repositories, are available here: 
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cassandra/4.0.2/ 
>> 
>> 
>> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who has 
>> tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are considered 
>> binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding +1s and no -1's.
>> 
>> [1]: CHANGES.txt: 
>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=blob_plain;f=CHANGES.txt;hb=refs/tags/4.0.2-tentative
>>  
>> 
>> [2]: NEWS.txt: 
>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=blob_plain;f=NEWS.txt;hb=refs/tags/4.0.2-tentative
>>  
>> 
> 

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.26

[Dinesh Joshi]

+1

> On Feb 8, 2022, at 12:22 PM, Jeremiah D Jordan  
> wrote:
> 
> -1 nb for same reason as I said for the 4.0.2 vote here: 
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/7zc22z5vw5b58hdzpx2nypwfzjzo3qbr 
> 
>  
> 
>> On Feb 8, 2022, at 6:15 AM, Mick Semb Wever > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> 
>> Checked
>> - signing correct
>> - checksums are correct
>> - source artefact builds
>> - binary artefact runs
>> - debian package runs
>> - redhat package runs
>> 
>> ( used https://github.com/apache/cassandra-builds/pull/32 
>>  )
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 11:12, Marcus Eriksson > > wrote:
>> +1
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 03:14:15PM +0100, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>> > Proposing the test build of Cassandra 3.0.26 for release.
>> > 
>> > sha1: b18adcba1a808cf77576905dc2ceccd7783bdb18
>> > 
>> > Git:
>> > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.26-tentative
>> >  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Maven Artifacts:
>> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1253/org/apache/cassandra/cassandra-all/3.0.26/
>> >  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > The Source and Build Artifacts, and the Debian and RPM packages and
>> > repositories, are available here:
>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cassandra/3.0.26/ 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who has
>> > tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are considered
>> > binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding +1s and no -1's.
>> > 
>> > [1]: CHANGES.txt:
>> > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=blob_plain;f=CHANGES.txt;hb=refs/tags/3.0.26-tentative
>> >  
>> > 
>> > [2]: NEWS.txt:
>> > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=blob_plain;f=NEWS.txt;hb=refs/tags/3.0.26-tentative
>> >  
>> > 
> 

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.11.12

[Dinesh Joshi]

+1

> On Feb 8, 2022, at 12:22 PM, Jeremiah D Jordan  
> wrote:
> 
> -1 nb for same reason as I said for the 4.0.2 vote here: 
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/7zc22z5vw5b58hdzpx2nypwfzjzo3qbr 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 8, 2022, at 4:10 AM, Dorian ROSSE > > wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Scott,
>> 
>> 
>> Yours links should work but thoses aren't the link shared by Mick,
>> 
>> As you see in attachment,
>> 
>> Regards.
>> 
>> 
>> Dorian Rosse.
>> 
>> De : C. Scott Andreas mailto:sc...@paradoxica.net>>
>> Envoyé : mardi 8 février 2022 à 00:30
>> À : dev@cassandra.apache.org 
>> Cc : dev
>> Objet : Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.11.12
>> 
>> Hi Dorian,
>> 
>> I see that the following download URLs appear to work fine for me and result 
>> in the tarballs being downloaded as expected.
>> 
>> – 
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cassandra/3.11.12/apache-cassandra-3.11.12-src.tar.gz
>>  
>> 
>> – 
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cassandra/3.11.12/apache-cassandra-3.11.12-bin.tar.gz
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> As Alex mentioned, to help the community debug and ensure a high quality 
>> release - in a JIRA ticket, could you please share specific steps to 
>> reproduce the issues you're encountering as well as any error messages you 
>> receive?
>> 
>> We would like to resolve these concerns as quickly as possible.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> – Scott
>> 
>>> On Feb 7, 2022, at 1:11 PM, Dorian ROSSE >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -1 I don't success to download it I fall on index.html
>>> 
>>>  
>>> De : Mick Semb Wever mailto:m...@apache.org>>
>>> Envoyé : lundi 7 février 2022 15:14
>>> À : dev mailto:dev@cassandra.apache.org>>
>>> Objet : [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.11.12
>>>  
>>> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 3.11.12 for release.
>>> 
>>> sha1: b44ff92eb2921e8d66fe2e994cb27289d3786faa
>>> 
>>> Git: 
>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.11.12-tentative
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Maven Artifacts: 
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-1254/org/apache/cassandra/cassandra-all/3.11.12/
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Source and Build Artifacts, and the Debian and RPM packages and 
>>> repositories, are available here: 
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/cassandra/3.11.12/ 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who has 
>>> tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are considered 
>>> binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding +1s and no -1's.
>>> 
>>> [1]: CHANGES.txt: 
>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=blob_plain;f=CHANGES.txt;hb=refs/tags/3.11.12-tentative
>>>  
>>> 
>>> [2]: NEWS.txt: 
>>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=blob_plain;f=NEWS.txt;hb=refs/tags/3.11.12-tentative
>>>  
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>