Re: [DISCUSSION] CASSANDRA-18772 - removal of commons-codec on trunk

> > I propose we remove commons-codec on trunk. > The only usage I found was from CASSANDRA-12790 - Support InfluxDb metrics reporter configuration, which relied on commons-codec and metrics-reporter-config, which will be removed as part of CASSANDRA-18743. > The only question is whether we can rem

Re: [DISCUSSION] CASSANDRA-18772 - removal of commons-codec on trunk

I would remove it all in 5.0 but that's just me. I do not think that the deprecation is a must and it is just unnecessary exercise and we are just red taping here. Major releases are good for dropping the "baggage" like this. Do we really want to wait until 6.0 is out to cut off the dead weight

Re: [DISCUSSION] CASSANDRA-18772 - removal of commons-codec on trunk

If we're going to do bulk dependency pruning, we should minimize the number of deprecation plans that users need to prepare for. There will likely be a few more dependencies we clean up around 5.0, so sticking with 5.0 deprecation and 6.0 removal for all of them would likely make our users' live

[DISCUSSION] CASSANDRA-18772 - removal of commons-codec on trunk

Hi everyone, I propose we remove commons-codec on trunk. The only usage I found was from CASSANDRA-12790 * - *Support InfluxDb metrics reporter configuration, which relied on commons-codec and metrics-reporter-config, which will be removed as

Re: [DISCUSSION] Shall we remove ant javadoc task?

+1 to `ant check` (and to failing on it). On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 18:43, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > Agreed with Maxim. If we fail CI on the javadoc task, in my opinion it > should be added to ant check probably. > > On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 12:40, Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > >> We have "artifacts"

Re: [DISCUSSION] Shall we remove ant javadoc task?

Agreed with Maxim. If we fail CI on the javadoc task, in my opinion it should be added to ant check probably. On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 12:40, Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > We have "artifacts" ant target that depends on "checks" and "gen-doc", > from my point of view, it would be nice to have the "artif

Re: [DISCUSSION] Shall we remove ant javadoc task?

We have "artifacts" ant target that depends on "checks" and "gen-doc", from my point of view, it would be nice to have the "artifacts" depending on "javadocs" as well. That way we can be sure that everything related is in good order. On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 18:05, Brandon Williams wrote: > > If ev

Re: [DISCUSSION] Shall we remove ant javadoc task?

If everything is good now, I think CI should fail if it regresses so we can keep it this way. Kind Regards, Brandon On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 10:49 AM Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > > In CASSANDRA-18717 Maxim posted the javadoc fix. Stefan already made a first > pass of review so it seems we are no

Re: [DISCUSSION] Shall we remove ant javadoc task?

In CASSANDRA-18717 Maxim posted the javadoc fix. Stefan already made a first pass of review so it seems we are not removing this ant task as it was already fixed and there are people who find value of keeping it. My question is do we want to fail CI if this regress or not? On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 22

Mailing list threading improvements

TL;DR: We’re updating how auto-generated email from Github will be threaded on your mailing lists. If you want to keep the old defaults, details are below. We’re pleased to let you know that we’re tweaking the way that auto- generated email from Github will appear on your mailing lists. This will

Re: [VOTE] Release dtest-api 0.0.16

+1 On Thu, Aug 17, 2023, at 4:46 AM, Brandon Williams wrote: > +1 > > Kind Regards, > Brandon > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 4:34 PM Dinesh Joshi wrote: > > > > Proposing the test build of in-jvm dtest API 0.0.16 for release. > > > > Repository: > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra-