+1
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Sylvain Lebresne
> wrote:
> > So, 1.0.3 was not as solid as one would have hoped and CASSANDRA-3510 is
> > fairly bad. We've also fixed a few concurrency bugs and more, so it is
> worth
> > push
+1
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> So, 1.0.3 was not as solid as one would have hoped and CASSANDRA-3510 is
> fairly bad. We've also fixed a few concurrency bugs and more, so it is worth
> pushing all this to the use now. I thus propose the following artifacts for
> rel
+1
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> So, 1.0.3 was not as solid as one would have hoped and CASSANDRA-3510 is
> fairly bad. We've also fixed a few concurrency bugs and more, so it is worth
> pushing all this to the use now. I thus propose the following artifacts for
> rel
+1
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Jake Luciani wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
>
>> So, 1.0.3 was not as solid as one would have hoped and CASSANDRA-3510 is
>> fairly bad. We've also fixed a few concurrency bugs and more, so it is
>> worth
>> pushing al
+1
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> So, 1.0.3 was not as solid as one would have hoped and CASSANDRA-3510 is
> fairly bad. We've also fixed a few concurrency bugs and more, so it is
> worth
> pushing all this to the use now. I thus propose the following artifacts for
> r
