Re: [VOTE][IP CLEARANCE] easy-cass-stress

I’m working on updating the date in the form. Some feedback I plan to eventually give: it took me literally 12 hours (that’s not an exaggeration) to clone the ASF Infra repo (on a good internet connection) to make this one line change and that took the free time I had over the weekend for this. To

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-46 Finish Transient Replication/Witnesses

As mutation tracking relates to existing backup systems that account for repaired vs unrepaired sstables, mutation tracking will continue to promote sstables to repaired once we know they contain data that has been fully reconciled. The main difference is that they won’t be promoted as part of a

Re: [VOTE] Simplifying our release versioning process

To close the loop here, I've updated our "Patching, release versioning, and LTS releases " wiki article with the agreed upon text here. I added the following clarification from the consensu

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-46 Finish Transient Replication/Witnesses

Consistent backup/restore is a fundamentally hard and unsolved problem for Cassandra today (without any of the mentioned features). In particular, we break the real-time guarantee of the linearizability property (most notably for LWTs) between partitions for any backup/restore process today. Fi

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-46 Finish Transient Replication/Witnesses

It took me a bit to wrap my head around how this works, but now that I think I understand the idea, it sounds like a solid improvement. Being able to achieve the same results as quorum but costing 1/3 less is a *big deal* and I know several teams that would be interested. One thing I'm curious ab

Re: [VOTE][IP CLEARANCE] easy-cass-stress

This is the vote thread, I was only correcting Dave. This is the vote thread for the Cassandra PMC, but for the IPMC (that's been cc'd) only a lazy consensus is required. A link to this thread will need to be added to the IP Clearance form (see its very last box). This thread already has the thr

Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-46 Finish Transient Replication/Witnesses

This sounds like a modern feature that will benefit a lot of folks in cutting storage costs, particularly in large deployments. I'd like to see a note on the CEP about documentation overhead as this is an important feature to communicate correctly, but that's just a nit. +1 on moving forward with

Re: [VOTE][IP CLEARANCE] easy-cass-stress

So Mick - just to be clear, it sounds like you're asking if we need a VOTE thread, but also saying you want one regardless of ASF policy. Am I understanding you correctly? On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 3:37 AM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > . > > >> This IP Clearance form is not yet completed. Pleas

Re: [VOTE][IP CLEARANCE] easy-cass-stress

. > This IP Clearance form is not yet completed. Please fill out the data > column in the form to indicate all steps have been done. > Please fill out the *date* column in the form to indicate all steps have been done. 😮‍💨

Re: [VOTE][IP CLEARANCE] easy-cass-stress

Apologies for coming in late on this one. +1 in general, but… -1 on the gh transfer (see below), and a few questions seeking clarification. Dave, is your comment about lazy-consensus applicable to both the project's PMC or the IPMC (Incubator PMC's role on this thread) ? My understanding is tha