Re: [VOTE] CEP-25: Trie-indexed SSTable format

+1 > On 19 Dec 2022, at 13:42, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > > +1 > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 8:30, J. D. Jordan > wrote: >> +1 nb >> >> > On Dec 19, 2022, at 7:07 AM, Brandon Williams > > > wrote: >> > >> > +1 >> > >> > Kind Regards

Re: Issue when creating a stream session

Indeed, it is safe to clean up now. Normally we prefer to do cleanups like that on trunk only, but I’d say feel free to remove this dead code in 4.0+ if that’s the branch you are targeting in CASSANDRA-17199. > On 19 Dec 2022, at 03:53, Yuki Morishita wrote: > > I dug the git history and it l

Re: Should we change 4.1 to G1 and offheap_objects ?

Switching a major default in a minor release is way worse than doing it in a GA - less notice and visibility, many folks don’t even read minor version NEWS.txt before upgrading. Trunk is fine by me though. > On 12 Jan 2023, at 13:14, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > >> Ok, wrt G1 default, this is won

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

What Benedict says is that the commits into cassandra/cep-15-accord and cassandra-accord/trunk branch have all been vetted by at least two committers already. Each authored by a Cassandra committer and then reviewed by a Cassandra committer. That *is* our bar for merging into Cassandra trunk. >

Re: Merging CEP-15 to trunk

ree that the reviews that have > already happened in the feature branch are sufficient and there isn't a need > for a new full blown review. > > As far as I can tell, this email thread is exactly that process and I imagine > was at least one of the reasons to send this he

Re: [DISCUSS] API modifications and when to raise a thread on the dev ML

Bringing light to new proposed APIs no less important - if not more, for reasons already mentioned in this thread. For it’s not easy to change them later. Voting B. > On 2 Feb 2023, at 10:15, Andrés de la Peña wrote: > > If it's a breaking change, like removing a method or property, I think w

Re: Implicitly enabling ALLOW FILTERING on virtual tables

Just make virtual table implementations decide? Add a method to VirtualTable interface to indicate if this is desirable, and call it a day? > On 6 Feb 2023, at 09:41, Benjamin Lerer wrote: > > Making ALLOW FILTERING a table option implies giving the right to the person > creating the table t

Re: [VOTE] CEP-21 Transactional Cluster Metadata

+1 > On 6 Feb 2023, at 17:24, Benedict wrote: > > +1 > >> On 6 Feb 2023, at 16:17, Brandon Williams wrote: >> >>  >> +1 >> >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2023, 10:15 AM Sam Tunnicliffe > > wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I would like to start a vote on this CEP. >>> >>> Proposa

Re: [DISCUSS] Allow UPDATE on settings virtual table to change running configuration

FWIW most of those volatile fields, if not in fact all of them, should NOT be volatile at all. Someone started the trend and most folks have been copycatting or doing the same for consistency with the rest of the codebase. Please definitely don’t rely on that. > On 21 Feb 2023, at 21:06, Maxim

Re: [DISCUSS] Allow UPDATE on settings virtual table to change running configuration

ssing the > volatile keyword. > > Le mer. 22 févr. 2023 à 11:36, Aleksey Yeshchenko <mailto:alek...@apple.com>> a écrit : >> FWIW most of those volatile fields, if not in fact all of them, should NOT >> be volatile at all. Someone started the trend and most folks

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release date

Don’t need to revert it so long as the feature they are for is not enabled by default. Or, if it’s a bit away from being useful enough to even test - mad hard-disabled without a way to enable. > On 1 Mar 2023, at 16:34, Henrik Ingo wrote: > > already merged 3 patches, but still has 2 to go? Ca

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for sstable formats m* (in trunk)

Raising messaging service minimum, I have a less strong opinion on, but on dropping m* sstable code I’m strongly -1. 1. This is code on a rarely touched path 2. It’s very stable and battle tested at this point 3. Removing it doesn’t reduce much complexity at all, just a few branches are affected

Re: Should we cut some new releases?

+1 > On 14 Mar 2023, at 05:50, Berenguer Blasi wrote: > > +1 > > On 13/3/23 21:25, Jacek Lewandowski wrote: >> +1 >> >> pon., 13 mar 2023, 20:36 użytkownik Miklosovic, Stefan >> mailto:stefan.mikloso...@netapp.com>> napisał: >>> Yes, I was waiting for CASSANDRA-18125 to be in. >>> >>> I can

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for sstable formats m* (in trunk)

I’m not sure we have an explicit rule at the moment. Would probably based on calendar time in addition to release versions if we had one. Addressing these on case by case basis for now is fine IMO. I’d say the general principle should be treat extended compatibility (between releases in general

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for sstable formats m* (in trunk)

> Saying that there is never any complexity and we should keep formats in > perpetuity, and I'm sitting here having a heart attack, srsly. Nobody is claiming that. Don’t let a straw man give you a heart attack. > Though I _always_ recommend users upgrade all sstables, before and after > every

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 4.1.1

+1 > On 17 Mar 2023, at 13:54, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > >> The vote will be open for 72 hours (longer if needed). Everyone who has >> tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC members are considered >> binding. A vote passes if there are at least three binding +1s and no -1's. > > >

Re: CASSANDRA-18247 committed

Hurray! Great work, thanks for making it happen. — AY > On 20 Mar 2023, at 17:19, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Happy Monday! > > CASSANDRA-18247 was just committed. It adds testing CircleCI configuration > for JDK11+JDK17. Full description and how to use it can be found i

Re: [VOTE] CEP-26: Unified Compaction Strategy

+1 > On 4 Apr 2023, at 16:56, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > > +1 > > On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 11:44, Benjamin Lerer > wrote: >> +1 >> >> Le mar. 4 avr. 2023 à 17:17, Andrés de la Peña > > a écrit : >>> +1 >>> >>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 15:09,

Re: [DISCUSS] Introduce DATABASE as an alternative to KEYSPACE

FYI we support SCHEMA as an alias to KEYSPACE today (have since always). Can use CREATE SCHEMA in place of CREATE KEYSPACE, etc. > On 4 Apr 2023, at 19:23, Henrik Ingo wrote: > > I find the Postgres terminology overly complex. Where most SQL databases will > have several *databases*, each con

Re: [DISCUSS] Introduce DATABASE as an alternative to KEYSPACE

Dig deeper :) It’s existed since day one in both CQL2 and CQL3. https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/cassandra-1.0/src/java/org/apache/cassandra/cql/Cql.g#L526-L527 > On 10 Apr 2023, at 00:35, Patrick McFadin wrote: > > I was trying to remember when SCHEMA got added to the CQL parser. With

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.11.15

+1 > On 2 May 2023, at 07:37, Miklosovic, Stefan > wrote: > > Proposing the test build of Cassandra 3.11.15 for release. > > sha1: 6cdcf5e56a77cf40c251125d68856a614eccbc53 > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.11.15-tentative > Maven Artifacts:

Re: [VOTE] CEP-28: Reading and Writing Cassandra Data with Spark Bulk Analytics

+1 > On 4 May 2023, at 17:46, Doug Rohrer wrote: > > Hello all, > > I’d like to put CEP-28 to a vote. > > Proposal: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-28%3A+Reading+and+Writing+Cassandra+Data+with+Spark+Bulk+Analytics > > Jira: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/brow

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.29

+1 > On 8 May 2023, at 09:44, Miklosovic, Stefan > wrote: > > Proposing the test build of Cassandra 3.0.29 for release. > > sha1: 087cffce636b63c12e328994d52bdf8f4ccc9750 > Git: https://github.com/apache/cassandra/tree/3.0.29-tentative > Maven Artifacts: > https://repository.apache.org/conten

Re: [DISCUSS] The future of CREATE INDEX

This. I would also consider adding CREATE LEGACY INDEX syntax as an alias for today’s CREATE INDEX, the latter to be deprecated and (in very distant future) removed. > On 12 May 2023, at 13:14, Benedict wrote: > > This creates huge headaches for everyone successfully using 2i today though, >

Re: Agrona vs fastutil and fastutil-concurrent-wrapper

This ^ It’s an absolutely beautifully written library by Martin Thompson, my go-to for years if I’m ever asked for an example of a Java codebase to study. I have read it essentially entirely, and more than once, and it makes me feel a little happier but also inadequate every time I do. It does

Re: [VOTE] CEP-30 ANN Vector Search

+1 > On 26 May 2023, at 07:19, Berenguer Blasi wrote: > > +1 > > On 26/5/23 6:07, guo Maxwell wrote: >> +1 >> >> Dinesh Joshi mailto:djo...@apache.org>>于2023年5月26日 >> 周五上午11:08写道： >>> +1 >>> On May 25, 2023, at 8:45 AM, Jonathan Ellis >>> > wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] CEP-8 Datastax Drivers Donation

+1 > On 15 Jun 2023, at 15:19, Chris Lohfink wrote: > > +1 > > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 9:05 PM Jon Haddad > wrote: >> +1 >> >> On 2023/06/13 14:14:35 Jeremy Hanna wrote: >> > Calling for a vote on CEP-8 [1]. >> > >> > To clarify the intent, as Benjamin said

Re: [DISCUSSIONS] Replace ant eclipse-warnings with CheckerFramework

Sounds like a clear improvement to me. Only once this check flagged a legitimate issue I missed, if I’m remembering correctly. All other instances have just been annoyances, forcing to add a redundant suppressed annotation. > On 15 Jun 2023, at 19:01, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > > Hi everyon

Re: Improved DeletionTime serialization to reduce disk size

Distant future people will not be happy about this, I can already tell you now. Sounds like a reasonable improvement to me however. > On 23 Jun 2023, at 07:22, Berenguer Blasi wrote: > > Hi all, > > DeletionTime.markedForDeleteAt is a long useconds since Unix Epoch. But I > noticed that with

Re: Changing the output of tooling between majors

As Eric said, a major release is not a license to make externally visible breaking changes. We are too mature a project now. I have OCD tendencies like many people here, but one must learn to live with aesthetically imperfect tool output. Internal changes are fine, external changes that are act

Re: [DISCUSS] Vector type and empty value

Allowing zero-length byte arrays for most old types is just a legacy from Darker Days. It’s a distinct concern from columns being nullable or not. There are a couple types where this makes sense: strings and blobs. All else should not allow this except for backward compatibility reasons. So, not

Re: [VOTE] Accept java-driver

+1 > On 5 Oct 2023, at 10:35, Benedict wrote: > > Surely it needs to be shared with the foundation and the PMC so we can > verify? Or at least have ASF legal confirm they have received and are > satisfied with the tarball? It certainly can’t be kept private to DS, AFAICT. > > Of course it sho

Re: Push TCM (CEP-21) and Accord (CEP-15) to 5.1 (and cut an immediate 5.1-alpha1)

I’m not so sure that many folks will choose to go 4.0->5.0->5.1 path instead of just waiting longer for TCM+Accord to be in, and go 4.0->5.1 in one hop. Nobody likes going through these upgrades. So I personally expect 5.0 to be a largely ghost release if we go this route, adopted by few, just a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-beta1

-1 on cutting a beta1 in this state. An alpha2 would be acceptable now, but I’m not sure there is significant value to be had from it. Merge the fixes for outstanding issues listed above, then cut beta1. With TCM and Accord pushed into 5.1, SAI is the headliner user-visible feature. It is what

Re: [VOTE] Release Harry 0.0.2

+1 > On 29 Nov 2023, at 11:35, Sam Tunnicliffe wrote: > > +1 > >> On 29 Nov 2023, at 11:14, Alex Petrov wrote: >> >> Even though we would like to bring harry in-tree, this is not an immediate >> priority. Meanwhile, we need to unblock RPM builds for trunk, which means no >> custom jars. We

Re: [DISCUSS] Harry in-tree

+1 > On 29 Nov 2023, at 07:23, Marcus Eriksson wrote: > > +1! > > /Marcus > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 04:43:36PM +0100, Alex Petrov wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> With TCM landed, there will be way more Harry tests in-tree: we are using it >> for many coordination tests, and there's now a simu

Re: [DISCUSS] Stream Pipelines on hot paths

Ban in all new non-test code seems like the most pragmatic approach to me as well. > On 7 Jun 2024, at 06:32, Jordan West wrote: > > Similarly in the "don't use them in the main project but am ok with tests" > camp > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 4:46 AM Štefan Miklošovič

Re: [DISCUSS] Stream Pipelines on hot paths

It am okay with its use off hot paths in principle, and I’ve done it myself. But as others have mentioned, it’s not obvious to every contributor what is and isn’t a hot path. Also, the codebase is a living, shifting thing: a cold path today can suddenly become hot tomorrow - it’s not uncommon.

Re: [VOTE][IP CLEARANCE] GoCQL driver

+1 > On 26 Jun 2024, at 07:38, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > > +1 > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 at 6:14, Jon Haddad > wrote: >> +1. >> >> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 1:50 AM J. D. Jordan > > wrote: >>> +1 nb. Good to see this heavily used dr

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 5.0-rc1

Not voting on this, however, if we expect to fix something specific between an RC and GA, then we shouldn’t be starting a vote on RC. In that case it should be another beta. > On 27 Jun 2024, at 18:30, Brandon Williams wrote: > > The last time paxos v2 blocked us in CASSANDRA-19617 which also

Re: Which approach should we use for exposing metrics through Virtual tables?

I don’t think it’s really necessary. Or at least I’m not seeing why having individual, specialised virtual tables is not sufficient. Nor do I think that we should expose everything that nodetool does, so IMO we shouldn’t aim for that. Even if the goal were to eventually deprecate and remove JMX

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

If we want to have a stable, usable 4.0.0 release out in the next 6-12 months, there needs to be a focused effort on getting it out - or else it’ll just never happen. This is more of a call to action and announcement of intent than an attempt to enforce policy; we can and probably will branch o

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

nch off 4.0, and keep trunk > > technically active. > > These are two very different statements. :) Which is it? > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:57 PM Aleksey Yeshchenko > wrote: > > > If we want to have a stable, usable 4.0.0 release out in the next 6-12

Re: Testing 4.0 Post-Freeze

+1 from me too. — AY On 10 July 2018 at 04:17:26, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apache.org) wrote: > We have done all this for previous releases and we know it has not worked > well. So how giving it one more try is going to help here. Can someone > outline what will change for 4.0 which will make

Re: [VOTE] Branching Change for 4.0 Freeze

+1 — AY On 11 July 2018 at 22:47:03, sankalp kohli (kohlisank...@gmail.com) wrote: Hi, As discussed in the thread[1], we are proposing that we will not branch on 1st September but will only allow following merges into trunk. a. Bug and Perf fixes to 4.0. b. Critical bugs in any version

Re: GitHub PR ticket spam

Nice indeed. I assume it also doesn’t spam commits@ when done this way, in which case double +1 from me. — AY On 6 August 2018 at 17:18:36, Jeremiah D Jordan (jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) wrote: Oh nice. I like the idea of keeping it but moving it to the worklog tab. +1 on that from me. > On

Re: Side Car New Repo vs not

FWIW I’m strongly -1 on in-tree approach, and would much prefer a separate repo, dtest-style. — AY On 21 August 2018 at 16:36:02, Jeremiah D Jordan (jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) wrote: I think the following is a very big plus of it being in tree: >> * Faster iteration speed in general. For exa

Re: Side Car New Repo vs not

Aleksey, Can you please elaborate on the reasons for your -1? This way we can make progress towards any one approach. Thanks, Sankalp On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 8:39 AM Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote: > FWIW I’m strongly -1 on in-tree approach, and would much prefer a separate > repo,

Re: Moving tickets out of 4.0 post freeze

We could continue as 4.0.x, 5.0.x, 6.0.x, 7.0.x, 8.0.x, 9.0.x, with minor forever fixed to 0. But I’m also struggling with how to justify the existence of that unused digit. We have never really done semantic versioning, we’ve arbitrarily flipped the major whenever we felt like “it was the righ

Re: Using Cassandra as local db without cluster

I agree with Jeff here. Furthermore, Cassandra should generally be your solution of last resort - if nothing else works out. In your case I’d try sqlite or leveldb (or rocksdb). > On 18 Oct 2018, at 11:46, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > I can’t think of a situation where I’d choose Cassandra as a data

Re: JIRA Workflow Proposals

1. C, D, A, B, E 2. B, C, A 3. A 4. Meh > On 11 Dec 2018, at 16:28, Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > > Just to re-summarise the questions for people: > > 1. (A) Only contributors may edit or transition issues; (B) Only contributors > may transition issues; (C) Only Jira-users may transition iss

Re: [VOTE] Change Jira Workflow

Sure, +1 > On 18 Dec 2018, at 09:42, Joseph Lynch wrote: > > +1 non-binding > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:15 AM Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > >> +1 >> -- >> Sylvain >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 9:34 AM Oleksandr Petrov < >> oleksandr.pet...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Mon, D

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.11.4

+1 > On 3 Feb 2019, at 00:31, Michael Shuler wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.11.4. > > sha1: fd47391aae13bcf4ee995abcde1b0e180372d193 > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.11.4-tentative > Artifacts: > https://reposit

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.18

+1 > On 4 Feb 2019, at 00:39, Joseph Lynch wrote: > > 3.0.18-tentative unit and dtest run: > https://circleci.com/gh/jolynch/cassandra/tree/3.0.18-tentative > > unit tests: 0 failures > dtests: 1 failure > * test_closing_connections - thrift_hsha_test.TestThriftHSHA ( > https://issues.apache.or

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.2.14

+1 > On 3 Feb 2019, at 00:32, Michael Shuler wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.14. > > sha1: af91658353ba601fc8cd08627e8d36bac62e936a > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.2.14-tentative > Artifacts: > https://reposit

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.21

Not sure we need another 2.1 release, this one included, but sure, +1 So long as the branch itself stays kinda open and most critical issues can have at least fixes for them committed, the interested parties can then keep building the artefacts manually. Once 4.0 is out we can freeze the branch

Re: Jira: Author Field

Some of it is just for clear attribution. Occasionally, you do get an extensive review that borders on authoring/coauthoring. Sometimes you get a large body of work co-created by several people in author capacity. Having a multi-user Authors field, in addition to the multi-user Reviewers fiel

Re: TLP tools for stress testing and building test clusters in AWS

Hey Jon, This sounds exciting and pretty useful, thanks. Looking forward to using tlp-stress for validating 15066 performance. We should touch base some time next week to pick a comprehensive set of workloads and versions, perhaps? > On 12 Apr 2019, at 16:34, Jon Haddad wrote: > > I don't w

Re: TLP tools for stress testing and building test clusters in AWS

gt; I’m also just as excited to see some standardised workloads and test bed. >>> At the moment we’re benefiting from some large contributors doing their own >>> proprietary performance testing, which is super valuable and something >>> we’ve lacked before. But I’m

Re: Acceptable for trunk? Committing the patch for "Customize cassandra log directory" (CASSANDRA-15090)

Yeah. I wouldn’t even go and ask for a waiver for anything as trivial as this change. Common sense of a committer should be sufficient. > On 26 May 2019, at 09:31, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > > The ticket CASSANDRA-15090 has a patch to introduce the variable > $CASSANDRA_LOG_DIR > > Strictl

Re: Java8 compatibility broken in 4.0

No, this is not intentional. At the very least for 4.0 we are going to keep compatibility with Java 8. > On 11 Jun 2019, at 10:04, Tommy Stendahl wrote: > > Hi, > > I can't find a way to build 4.0 artifacts so I can run Cassandra using Java8. > Building the artifacts ("ant artifacts" or "ant

Re: 4.0 alpha before apachecon?

Not really important IMO if we do or do not cut a new branch yet. So let’s hold off? But as mentioned on Slack, I really like the idea of cutting an alpha now, with clear understanding that the API will still slightly change before the 4.0-GA. There is enough complete work in trunk that will *n

Re: [VOTE-2] Apache Cassandra Release Lifecycle

+1 as a rather reasonable starting point; we can make changes to the process in the future if need be. > On 8 Oct 2019, at 19:00, sankalp kohli wrote: > > Hi, >We have discussed in the email thread[1] about Apache Cassandra Release > Lifecycle. We came up with a doc[2] for it. We have final

Re: Protocol-impacting (internode and client) changes for 4.0

+1; in particular since the protocol itself is still in beta > On 9 Oct 2019, at 17:26, Oleksandr Petrov wrote: > > Hi, > > During NGCC/ACNA19 we've had quite a few conversations around the 4.0 > release. Many (minor) features and changes suggested during that time are > possible to implement i

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 4.0-alpha2

+1 > On 24 Oct 2019, at 18:26, Michael Shuler wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 4.0-alpha2. > > sha1: ca928a49c68186bdcd57dea8b10c30991c6a3c55 > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/4.0-alpha2-tentative > Artifacts: > http

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.2.15

+1 > On 24 Oct 2019, at 18:25, Michael Shuler wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.15. > > sha1: 4ee4ceea28a1cb77b283c7ce0135340ddff02086 > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.2.15-tentative > Artifacts: > https://repo

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.11.5

+1 > On 24 Oct 2019, at 18:26, Michael Shuler wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.11.5. > > sha1: b697af87f8e1b20d22948390d516dba1fbb9eee7 > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.11.5-tentative > Artifacts: > https://repo

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.19

+1 > On 24 Oct 2019, at 18:25, Michael Shuler wrote: > > I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.19. > > sha1: a81bfd6b7db3a373430b3c4e8f4e930b199796f0 > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.19-tentative > Artifacts: > https://repo

Re: Improvements on C* v3.11

Normally we prefer new features to go to trunk. In some rare cases, when the risk is low and the value of a new feature is high, we make exceptions - but usually early in a major version life cycle, and mostly in the past, when we were a lot more lax about such things. In this particular case I

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to using GitHub pull requests?

The person introducing flakiness to a test will almost always have run it locally and on CI first with success. It’s usually later when they first start failing, and it’s often tricky to attribute to a particular commit/person. So long as we have these - and we’ve had flaky tests for as long as

Re: [DISCUSS] Switch to using GitHub pull requests?

substantial, I vastly prefer to summarise my feedback (and see others’ feedback summarised) in JIRA comments - an opinion I and other contributors have shared in one or two similar threads over the years. > On 24 Jan 2020, at 12:21, Aleksey Yeshchenko > wrote: > > The person introducing fl

Re: [DISCUSS] Client protocol changes (Was: 20200217 4.0 Status Update)

For what it’s worth, we could trivially implement support for passing down the timeout in 4.0.0, so that both the server and the client are able to parse the frames with and without them, but delay implementation of the server side logic necessary for terminating requests early until a further m

Re: server side describe

Yeah, I feel like it’s a bad example to use to highlight 4.0 scope creep (which is less of a thing than some fear). The work there is already done, and it’s extremely unintrusive. There is no reason whatsoever to block 4.0 on it, but no reason not to commit - now, in a beta, in the first RC, or

Re: Keeping test-only changes out of CHANGES.txt

+1 > On 8 Apr 2020, at 15:08, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > Can we agree on keeping such test changes out of CHANGES.txt ? > > We already don't put entries into CHANGES.txt if it is not a change > from any previous release. > > There was some discussion before¹ about this, and the problem that >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 4.0-alpha4

+1 > On 11 Apr 2020, at 00:02, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > Proposing the test build of Cassandra 4.0-alpha4 for release. > > sha1: d00c004cc10986fc41c2070f9c5d0007e03a45c3 > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/4.0-alpha4-tentative > Maven Artifacts:

Re: Simplify voting rules for in-jvm-dtest-api releases

+1 > On 15 Apr 2020, at 14:35, Oleksandr Petrov wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Apache release rules were made for first-class projects. I would like to > propose simplifying voting rules for in-jvm-dtest-api project [1]. > > A bit of background: in-jvm-dtest-api is a project that is used by all >

Re: Discussion: addition to CEP guide

+1 > On 23 Apr 2020, at 12:58, Benjamin Lerer wrote: > > +1 for both > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:49 AM Jordan West wrote: > >> +1 (nb) on both counts. Thanks for bringing this up! >> >> Jordan >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:53 AM Joshua McKenzie >> wrote: >> Maybe put

Re: Calling for release managers (Committers and PMC)

Please add me as well. > On 12 May 2020, at 09:51, Sam Tunnicliffe wrote: > > Me too. > >> On 11 May 2020, at 20:23, Jake Luciani wrote: >> >> Happy to lend a hand >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 3:12 PM Eric Evans >> wrote: >> >>> I can take a turn. >>> >>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 11:10 AM

Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)

+1 > On 20 Jun 2020, at 16:12, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > Link to doc: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes > in favour ne

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.21

+1 > On 14 Jul 2020, at 23:49, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > Proposing the test build of Cassandra 3.0.21 for release. > > sha1: e39d1da325f5853ab3a64d92ecf52f8271239b9e > Git: > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.21-tentative > Maven Artifacts: > https:

Re: [Vote] Remove Windows support from 4.0+

+1 > On 10 Aug 2020, at 04:14, Yuki Morishita wrote: > > As per the discussion(*), I propose to remove Windows support from 4.0 > release and onward. > > Windows scripts are not maintained and we lack windows test > environments. WIndows users can use docker or cloud environments to > set up C

Re: naming development branches consistently

Last thing I want is to bikeshed, but seems like ‘main’ is what’s being adopted by GitHub, so we might as well rename all ‘master’ and ’trunk’ branches to that. > On 24 Aug 2020, at 17:22, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > Ah! Totally didn't even think of that. Good point. > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at

Re: Problem in updating schema in Cassandra 3.11.4

I’m reasonably certain that this is one of the things that I fixed in 4.0. It’d be too invasive a change for 3.11, unfortunately. > On 1 Sep 2020, at 16:52, Benjamin Lerer wrote: > > Hi, > > Could you precise what you mean by " will only validate the schema while > changing in memory, and will

Re: [DISCUSS] Change style guide to recommend use of @Override

+1. Some of us have already adopted this change some time ago, but it’d be nice to make it official for everybody. > On 1 Sep 2020, at 19:27, David Capwell wrote: > > Currently our style guide recommends to avoid using @Override and updates > intellij's code style to exclude it by default; I wo

Re: [VOTE] Accept the Harry donation

+1 > On 16 Sep 2020, at 16:09, Sumanth Pasupuleti > wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 7:41 AM Jon Meredith wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 8:28 AM David Capwell >> wrote: >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> On Sep 16, 2020, at

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.24

+1 > On 29 Jan 2021, at 14:31, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > > +1(nb) > > On Fri, 29 Jan 2021 at 8:21, Oleksandr Petrov > wrote: > >>> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 4.0-beta4 for release. >> >> Correction: test build of 3.0.24. The rest looks right. >> >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 1:48

Re: Hints replay incompatible between 2.x and 3.x

It doesn’t work between any two majors (1.2 and 2.0, 2.0 and 2.1, 2.1 and 3.0). The reason is that hint delivery doesn’t proceed between two nodes unless they have the same schema version, and in every recent major release we made changes that made schema calculation differ even without any DDL

Re: Compact Storage and SuperColumn Tables in 4.0/trunk

4.0 should also fail startup (very early) if it still sees any non-migrated tables, probably. — AY On 19 September 2017 at 18:35:11, J. D. Jordan (jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com) wrote: Thanks for the clarification. +1 for adding a "DROP COMPACT STORAGE" option in 3.x and then not allowing it to b

Re: State of Materialized Views

It’s the only remaining one on my radar. But we should be good next week - so long as nothing else pops up, and I’m not missing any other JIRAs. — AY On 22 September 2017 at 19:18:12, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote: I asked the same question on IRC a couple days ago and Aleksey a

Re: Expected release date for 3.11.1?

FWIW, none of the remaining issues are strictly speaking regressions from previous versions. So if we felt strongly about starting the vote right now, I wouldn’t object, and would vote +1 - there is a lot of fixes accumulated there already. But all I need is a few days here, assuming review is

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.1.19

+1 — AY On 28 September 2017 at 19:12:19, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote: I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.1.19. sha1: 428eaa3e37cab7227c81fdf124d29dfc1db4257c Git: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.1.19-tentat

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 2.2.11

+1 — AY On 28 September 2017 at 19:41:13, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote: I propose the following artifacts for release as 2.2.11. sha1: c510e001481637e1f74d9ad176f8dc3ab7ebd1e3 Git: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/2.2.11-tentat

Re: Expected release date for 3.11.1?

the update! > > -- > Michael > > On 09/28/2017 10:50 AM, Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote: > > FWIW, none of the remaining issues are strictly speaking regressions > from previous versions. > > > > So if we felt strongly about starting the vote right

Re: Proposal to retroactively mark materialized views experimental

The idea is to check the flag in CreateViewStatement, so creation of new MVs doesn’t succeed without that flag flipped. Obviously, just disabling existing MVs working in a minor would be silly. As for the warning - yes, that should also be emitted. Unconditionally. — AY On 2 October 2017 at 18

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.0.15

+1 — AY On 2 October 2017 at 18:18:26, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote: I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.0.15. sha1: b32a9e6452c78e6ad08e371314bf1ab7492d0773 Git: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.0.15-tentative

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.11.1

+1 — AY On 2 October 2017 at 18:58:57, Michael Shuler (mich...@pbandjelly.org) wrote: I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.11.1. sha1: 983c72a84ab6628e09a78ead9e20a0c323a005af Git: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.11.1-tentative

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Cassandra 3.11.1

Thomas, I would maybe agree with waiting for a while because of it, if we had a proper fix at least under review - or in progress by someone. But this is not a regression, and there’s been a lot of fixes accumulated and not released yet. Arguable worse to hold them back :\ — AY On 2 October 2

Re: Proposal to retroactively mark materialized views experimental

> > > >> How does emitting a native protocol warning reduce visibility during > the > > >> development process? If you run CREATE MV and cqlsh then prints out a > > >> giant warning statement about how it is an experimental feature I > think > > >&

Re: Proposal to retroactively mark materialized views experimental

Yep. And that would be nice to have in addition to the opt-in flag in the yaml for the operators that’s stricter than a warning. — AY On 2 October 2017 at 22:21:33, Jeremiah D Jordan (jerem...@datastax.com) wrote: We are not saying to just put something in logs, we are talking about the warn a

Re: Proposal to retroactively mark materialized views experimental

There are a couple compromise options here: a) Introduce the flag (enalbe_experimental_features, or maybe one per experimental feature), set it to ‘false’ in the yaml, but have the default be ‘true’. So that if you are upgrading from a previous minor to the next without updating the yaml, you n

  1   2   >