In addition to these, maybe we could consider to change other as well? Like:
1. bump roles_validity_in_ms, permissions_validity_in_ms, and
credentials_validity_in_ms as well - maybe at least to a minute, or 2. I
have seen multiple times when authentication was failing under the heavy
load
Patrick's added the recording and linked it via the wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Contributor+Meeting
Here's a direct link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DprX7Y5v30M&feature=emb_logo
Thanks, Patrick!
From:
When submitting or reviewing a change in JIRA I notice that we have three
main patterns for doing this: link branch, link diff, and link GitHub pull
request (PR); I wanted to bring up the idea of switching over to GitHub
pull requests as the norm.
Why should we do this? The main reasons I can th
This is brought up roughly once per year. If anything, you're a bit behind
schedule
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0750a01682eb36374e490385d6776669ac86ebc02efa27a87b2dbf9f%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c21ccedc7fbda18558997dee8f86c074514b67387858ec12
I personally use Github PRs to discuss the changes if there is feedback on the
code. The discussion does get linked with the JIRA ticket. However, committing
is manual.
Dinesh
> On Jan 22, 2020, at 2:20 PM, David Capwell wrote:
>
> When submitting or reviewing a change in JIRA I notice that w
Thanks for the links Benedict!
Been reading the links and see the following points being made
*) enabling the spark process would lower the process to enter the project
*) high level discussions should be in JIRA [1]
*) not desirable to annotation JIRA and Github; should only annotate JIRA
(revie
+1 nb to the PR approach for reviewing.
And thanks David for initiating the discussion. I would like to put my 2
cents in it.
IMO, reviews comments are better associated with the changes, precisely to
the line level, if they are put in the PR rather than in the JIRA comments.
Discussions regard
Hi everyone,
For a first time, things went amazingly smooth with Zoom and having a good
exchange and participation.
Scott already provided the link but I'll just offer up a quick summary from
the meeting notes and an easy reminder for those that volunteered for
something.
All notes and link to r
Doesn’t this github review workflow as described work right now? It’s just not
the “only” way people do things?
I don’t think we need to forbid other methods of contribution as long as the
review and testing needs are met.
-Jeremiah
> On Jan 22, 2020, at 6:35 PM, Yifan Cai wrote:
>
> +1 nb
Hi Everyone,
Josh is traveling this week so he sent me a brief summary and I offered to
send it to the mailing list w/ a few updates. There was enough progress in
the last week to warrant an update.
The 4.0 board can be found at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=355.
Sorry Jeremiah, I don't understand your comment, would it be possible to
elaborate more?
About the point on not forbidding as long as the review and testing needs
are met, could you define what that means to you?
There are a few questions I ask myself
"Does the current process stop code which br
Thanks for the update :)...It is difficult to join the meeting from India
due to timezone difference but will try to join some day.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:47 AM Scott Andreas wrote:
> Patrick's added the recording and linked it via the wiki:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CAS
12 matches
Mail list logo
