[DISCUSS] CASSANDRA-16767, CASSANDRA-16768, and CASSANDRA-16769 for 3.11.x

I'd like to discuss the inclusion of the above tickets for a 3.11.x release. These are not a pure 'bug fix' so I'll need a waiver to get them into 3.11.x (and implicitly, 4.0.x). The first two are straightforward oversights: neither *nodetool garbagecollect *nor *nodetool scrub* currently accep

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-9: Make SSLContext creation pluggable

^^^ bumping up ^^^ this thread since people might have more time reviewing post 4.0 work. Specifically for this section

Re: Additions to Cassandra ecosystem page?

> Listing a product on our website implicitly endorses that offering, and we should absolutely be restrictive about what we endorse. I’m -1 unconditionally endorsing I don't think listing a product on the website means implicitly endorsing it if it's explicitly mentioned with a visible disclaimer

Re: Additions to Cassandra ecosystem page?

If I have to choose between the four choices that you proposed I would then choose (1) List no alternative offerings at all. Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 09:34, bened...@apache.org a écrit : > I don’t think it is intractable to come up with a definition that we use > for inclusion. > > 1. List no alte

Re: Additions to Cassandra ecosystem page?

I don’t think it is intractable to come up with a definition that we use for inclusion. 1. List no alternative offerings at all. 2. List only those offerings that deploy precisely a released version of Cassandra. 3. List only those offerings that deploy precisely a released version of Cassandra

Re: Additions to Cassandra ecosystem page?

I feel that we are going into a too restrictive direction. I believe that we have more to win by being open and welcoming. -1 for the strict approach and for the licences. Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 00:40, Ben Bromhead a écrit : > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 2:38 AM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > > > T