There is no regression here yet, however static columns turn out to be insanely
useful (perhaps for reasons other than originally intended), so I am curious
what the general approach is to changes in what is essentially a very new
feature.
In this context, I am showing something that works as i
+1 on more testing. TBH, I was a little scared when I found #7465 as it was
rather easy to uncover.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith <
belliottsm...@datastax.com> wrote:
> Pretty sure we got this head of the hydra. Question is if any more will
> spring up in its place.
>
>
+1
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Gary Dusbabek wrote:
> +1
> On Jul 2, 2014 6:36 AM, "Sylvain Lebresne" wrote:
>
> > 1.2.17 shipped with a reference to a java 7 class (see CASSANDRA-7147).
> As
> > consequence, the source don't build on java 6. Regarding the binary
> > artifacts,
> > they a
Pretty sure we got this head of the hydra. Question is if any more will
spring up in its place.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7465 is a pretty big
> one, I'd like to get some more testing with the fix before rolling
> -fi
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7465 is a pretty big
one, I'd like to get some more testing with the fix before rolling
-final. thoughts?
--
Jonathan Ellis
Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
@spyced
+1
On Jul 2, 2014 6:36 AM, "Sylvain Lebresne" wrote:
> 1.2.17 shipped with a reference to a java 7 class (see CASSANDRA-7147). As
> consequence, the source don't build on java 6. Regarding the binary
> artifacts,
> they are still targeted to java 6 so the only thing that doesn't work is
> the
>
+1
On Jul 2, 2014 9:36 PM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
1.2.17 shipped with a reference to a java 7 class (see CASSANDRA-7147). As
consequence, the source don't build on java 6. Regarding the binary
artifacts,
they are still targeted to java 6 so the only thing that doesn't work is the
use of the new
+1
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Sylvain Lebresne
wrote:
> 1.2.17 shipped with a reference to a java 7 class (see CASSANDRA-7147). As
> consequence, the source don't build on java 6. Regarding the binary
> artifacts,
> they are still targeted to java 6 so the only thing that doesn't work is
>
+1
On Wednesday, July 2, 2014, Jason Brown wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Jonathan Ellis > wrote:
>
> > +1
> > On Jul 2, 2014 4:36 AM, "Sylvain Lebresne" > wrote:
> >
> > > 1.2.17 shipped with a reference to a java 7 class (see CASSANDRA-7147).
> > As
> > > consequence, the
+1
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> +1
> On Jul 2, 2014 4:36 AM, "Sylvain Lebresne" wrote:
>
> > 1.2.17 shipped with a reference to a java 7 class (see CASSANDRA-7147).
> As
> > consequence, the source don't build on java 6. Regarding the binary
> > artifacts,
> > they a
+1
On Jul 2, 2014 4:36 AM, "Sylvain Lebresne" wrote:
> 1.2.17 shipped with a reference to a java 7 class (see CASSANDRA-7147). As
> consequence, the source don't build on java 6. Regarding the binary
> artifacts,
> they are still targeted to java 6 so the only thing that doesn't work is
> the
> u
1.2.17 shipped with a reference to a java 7 class (see CASSANDRA-7147). As
consequence, the source don't build on java 6. Regarding the binary
artifacts,
they are still targeted to java 6 so the only thing that doesn't work is the
use of the new cloudstack snitch (which is new in 1.2.17). So anyway
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> Yes, and I'd even lean towards taking 1.2.17 down until that's fixed.
>
I'd prefer doing a quick re-roll of 1.2.18 (which I'll start shortly) and
simply sending a small warning email to the user list (which I'll do) but
leaving 1.2.17 be un
13 matches
Mail list logo
