Re: Accepting AI generated contributions

Hi, On Wed, Jun 11, 2025, at 3:48 PM, Jeremiah Jordan wrote: > Where are you getting this from? From the OpenAI terms of use: > https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use/ Direct from the ASF legal mailing list discussion I linked to in my original email calling this out https://lists.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Improving the operational safety and simplicity of in-place major version upgrades

+1 to creating such a module. It would definitely be useful and valuable. +1 to having it live in the side car. Though implementing it will of course need changes in the server as well to support the features the sidecar needs. Not sure we would get to the case of only a single restart on the n

Re: Question: are committers binding on CEP votes or just PMC members?

Nice. Thanks to everyone who has clarified the voting rules. One minor suggestion, it would add a bit more clarity, if the "For Releases" section also mentions that committers' +1 votes are not binding, but their -1 votes are (binding). On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 7:38 AM Josh McKenzie wrote: > F

Re: [DISCUSS] CASSSIDECAR-254 - Enabling sidecar to collect async profiles

>Previous experiences (good or bad) I have been using an async-profiler in my project for quite some time to profile the CPU. Additionally, I have wrapped it with an HTTP interface, allowing one to open a browser and view the CPU flame graph in real-time, which further simplifies the process. It is

Re: Accepting AI generated contributions

Hi, We could, but if the allow list is binding then it's still an allow list with some guidance on how to expand the allow list. If it isn't binding then it's guidance so still option 2 really. I think the key distinction to find some early consensus on if we do a binding allow list or guidanc

Re: Accepting AI generated contributions

Couldn't our official stance be a combination of 1 and 2? i.e. "Here's an allow list. If you're using something not on that allow list, here's some basic guidance and maybe let us know how you tried to mitigate some of this risk so we can update our allow list w/some nuance". On Mon, Jun 16, 20

Re: [VOTE] Clarifying our JDK Support Policy

+1(nb) > On Jun 13, 2025, at 10:47 PM, Doug Rohrer wrote: > > +1 (nb) with the clarified verbiage (thanks for talking through that with me). > > Doug > >> On Jun 13, 2025, at 3:55 PM, Aaron wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 2:33 PM Yifan Cai > > wrote:

Re: Accepting AI generated contributions

I haven't participated much here, but my vote would be basically #1, i.e. an "allow list" with a clear procedure for expansion. On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 4:05 PM Ariel Weisberg wrote: > Hi, > > We could, but if the allow list is binding then it's still an allow list > with some guidance on how to

Re: [DISCUSS] CASSSIDECAR-254 - Enabling sidecar to collect async profiles

Thanks everyone for your inputs! I'm looking to work on this, and will circle back with any recommendations or discussion points moving forward - excited to get this into C*! From: j...@rustyrazorblade.com At: 06/13/25 14:40:24 UTC-4:00To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CASSS

Re: Accepting AI generated contributions

I'm on with the allow list(1) or option 2. 3 just isn't realistic anymore. Patrick On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 3:09 PM Caleb Rackliffe wrote: > I haven't participated much here, but my vote would be basically #1, i.e. > an "allow list" with a clear procedure for expansion. > > On Mon, Jun 16, 20