Hudson build is back to normal : Cassandra #680

See

Re: Column TTL misbehavior?

Avoid this subject, giving it a second thought, There is no reason to put a column a TTL value that goes past a year, and this problem will only appear after the year 2038. I need to stop drinking coffee. On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Javier Canillas wrote: > I have been working on Aquiles fo

Column TTL misbehavior?

I have been working on Aquiles for some time, and some of the people that is actually using my client to consume Cassandra's services (lastest version on Cassandra 0.7.0) has followed me an issue. Básically, they were trying to submit a new column with a TTL value of 852282524, and everytime they t

Build failed in Hudson: Cassandra #679

See Changes: [jbellis] merge from 0.7 [jbellis] merge from 0.7 -- [...truncated 1691 lines...] [junit] Tests run: 10, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Time elapsed: 0.183 sec [junit] [junit]

[VOTE] 6.10

We should probably get the fix for CASSANDRA-1959 out to users of 0.6. I propose the following artifacts for release as 0.6.10. SVN: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cassandra/branches/cassandra-0.6@r1060906 0.6.10 artifacts: http://people.apache.org/~eevans The vote will be open for the usual 7

Re: Proposal: fixed release schedule

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Eric Evans wrote: > The discussion seems to be petering out and I wonder if that means folks > are still trying to wrap their heads around everything, or if we have > consensus. > > If we're in agreement on 4 months between releases, and feature-freezing > branche

Re: Avro in the Cassandra core

It's impossible to argue against this kind of consensus, so I won't. Can we please turn this discussion to something productive? Namely: now that we've eliminated the top (IMO) choice for a standard serialization framework within Cassandra, which option _will_ we choose? Continuing down our curren