+1
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 16:03, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> Alright, third time's not always the charm, my mistake. Let's try again.
> I propose the following artifacts for release as 0.8.1:
>
> SVN:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cassandra/branches/cassandra-0.8.1@r1139326
> Artifacts:
> h
+1
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> Alright, third time's not always the charm, my mistake. Let's try again.
> I propose the following artifacts for release as 0.8.1:
>
> SVN:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cassandra/branches/cassandra-0.8.1@r1139326
> Artifacts:
+1
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> Alright, third time's not always the charm, my mistake. Let's try again.
> I propose the following artifacts for release as 0.8.1:
>
> SVN:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cassandra/branches/cassandra-0.8.1@r1139326
> Artifacts:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Peter Schuller
wrote:
>> [1]: http://goo.gl/qbvPB (CHANGES.txt)
>> [2]: http://goo.gl/7uQXl (NEWS.txt)
>
> CASSANDRA-2280 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2280)
> is not listed (and I don't see the change in the branch), which I
> suspect may be on
> [1]: http://goo.gl/qbvPB (CHANGES.txt)
> [2]: http://goo.gl/7uQXl (NEWS.txt)
CASSANDRA-2280 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2280)
is not listed (and I don't see the change in the branch), which I
suspect may be on purpose? However, if so the JIRA ticket should
probably be update
Further testing showed that 0.8.0 introduced a bug in the protocol
versioning (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2818).
We'll get a fix in either 0.8.1 or 0.8.2, and we've reverted the
protocol change from the 0.8.1 candidate.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2818 looks like a
serious problem.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> Third time's the charm. I propose the following artifacts for release as
> 0.8.1:
>
> SVN:
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cassandra/branches/cassandr
+1, non-binding of course, I really want to see 2765 we've seen a few
instances where this has caused problems and it would be nice to have an
official release with this patch included.
On 6/21/11 7:54 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
Third time's the charm. I propose the following artifacts for re
Agreed. (Un parisien qui ne fume pas!? :)
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> This did not took long, but I think we should probably re-roll this one for
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2801
>
> I'll wait for someone to confirm that I'm not smoking though.
This did not took long, but I think we should probably re-roll this one for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2801
I'll wait for someone to confirm that I'm not smoking though.
--
Sylvain
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> Let's try that again. I propose t
Sorry, this is incorrect. The right answer is, "it's normal to see
'newer version' messages when mixing versions, until the newer node
realizes via gossip what version the old node is on and adjusts its
messages accordingly."
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> Yes, rolling
After discussion on #cassandra-dev, I amend my vote to -0.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:29, Gary Dusbabek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:12, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
>> Yes, there has been a change of the messaging server version
>> between 0.8.0 and 0.8.1.
>>
>
> Do we hate our users or somet
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:12, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> Yes, there has been a change of the messaging server version
> between 0.8.0 and 0.8.1.
>
Do we hate our users or something? This is a bad idea.
The whole idea behind CASSANDRA-1015 was that we would reserve changes
like this to major ver
Yes, there has been a change of the messaging server version
between 0.8.0 and 0.8.1.
--
Sylvain
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Peter Schuller
wrote:
>> If things are working properly, he shouldn't see any of these messages
>> on a minor version upgrade because the version number should remain
> If things are working properly, he shouldn't see any of these messages
> on a minor version upgrade because the version number should remain
> constant. The message version should only change on major releases
> (if necessary).
>
> It could be that the existing cluster was built with non-release
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 09:45, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Shotaro Kamio wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> NEWS.txt claims that rolling upgrade works.
>> Upgrading
>> -
>> - 0.8.1 is backwards compatible with 0.8, upgrade can be achieved by a
>> simpl
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Shotaro Kamio wrote:
> Hi,
>
> NEWS.txt claims that rolling upgrade works.
> Upgrading
> -
> - 0.8.1 is backwards compatible with 0.8, upgrade can be achieved by a
> simple rolling restart.
> --
>
> However, we got following mess
Yes, rolling upgrades are supported but streaming (repair, bootstrap,
move) is only supported when everyone is on the same version. (Same
was true for 0.7 -> 0.8.0)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Shotaro Kamio wrote:
> Hi,
>
> NEWS.txt claims that rolling upgrade works.
> Upgrading
> ---
Hi,
NEWS.txt claims that rolling upgrade works.
Upgrading
-
- 0.8.1 is backwards compatible with 0.8, upgrade can be achieved by a
simple rolling restart.
--
However, we got following messages when rolling upgrade from 0.8.0
based binary to 0.8 branch bina
19 matches
Mail list logo
