Benedict, what is your expectation for stabilization time? And what is the suggestion for the patches Benjamin mentioned, which are on their way to land in trunk? (Or any other patch on its way to be merged)
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 8:20, Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > The time to stabilise is orthogonal to the time we branch. Once we branch > we stop accepting new features for the branch, and work to stabilise. > > My understanding is we will branch as soon as we have a viable alpha > containing TCM and Accord. That means pretty soon after they land in the > project, which we expect to be around the summit. > > If this isn’t the expectation we should make that clear, as it will affect > how this decision is made. > > On 26 Oct 2023, at 10:14, Benjamin Lerer <b.le...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Regarding the release of 5.1, I understood the proposal to be that we cut >> an actual alpha, thereby sealing the 5.1 release from new features. Only >> features merged before we cut the alpha would be permitted, and the alpha >> should be cut as soon as practicable. What exactly would we be waiting for? > > > The problem I believe is about expectations. It seems that your > expectation is that a release with only TCM and Accord will reach GA > quickly. Based on the time it took us to release 4.1, I am simply expecting > more delays (a GA around end of May, June). In which case it seems to me > that we could be interested in shipping more stuff in the meantime > (thinking of CASSANDRA-15254 or CEP-29 for example). > I do not have a strong opinion, I just want to make sure that we all share > the same understanding and fully understand what we agree upon. > > Le jeu. 26 oct. 2023 à 10:59, Benjamin Lerer <b.le...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >> I am surprised this needs to be said, but - especially for long-running >>> CEPs - you must involve yourself early, and certainly within some >>> reasonable time of being notified the work is ready for broader input and >>> review. In this case, more than six months ago. >> >> >> It is unfortunately more complicated than that because six month ago >> Ekaterina and I were working on supporting Java 17 and dropping Java 8 >> which was needed by different ongoing works. We both missed the >> announcement that TCM was ready for review and anyway would not have been >> available at that time. Maxim has asked me ages ago for a review of >> CASSANDRA-15254 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15254> >> more than 6 months ago and I have not been able to help him so far. We all >> have a limited bandwidth and can miss some announcements. >> >> The project has grown and a lot of things are going on in parallel. There >> are also more interdependencies between the different projects. In my >> opinion what we are lacking is a global overview of the different things >> going on in the project and some rough ideas of the status of the different >> significant pieces. It would allow us to better organize ourselves. >> >> Le jeu. 26 oct. 2023 à 00:26, Benedict <bened...@apache.org> a écrit : >> >>> I have spoken privately with Ekaterina, and to clear up some possible >>> ambiguity: I realise nobody has demanded a delay to this work to conduct >>> additional reviews; a couple of folk have however said they would prefer >>> one. >>> >>> >>> My point is that, as a community, we need to work on ensuring folk that >>> care about a CEP participate at an appropriate time. If they aren’t able >>> to, the consequences of that are for them to bear. >>> >>> >>> We should be working to avoid surprises as CEP start to land. To this >>> end, I think we should work on some additional paragraphs for the >>> governance doc covering expectations around the landing of CEPs. >>> >>> On 25 Oct 2023, at 21:55, Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I am surprised this needs to be said, but - especially for long-running >>> CEPs - you must involve yourself early, and certainly within some >>> reasonable time of being notified the work is ready for broader input and >>> review. In this case, more than six months ago. >>> >>> >>> This isn’t the first time this has happened, and it is disappointing to >>> see it again. Clearly we need to make this explicit in the guidance docs. >>> >>> >>> Regarding the release of 5.1, I understood the proposal to be that we >>> cut an actual alpha, thereby sealing the 5.1 release from new features. >>> Only features merged before we cut the alpha would be permitted, and the >>> alpha should be cut as soon as practicable. What exactly would we be >>> waiting for? >>> >>> >>> If we don’t have a clear and near-term trigger for branching 5.1 for its >>> own release, shortly after Accord and TCM merge, then I am in favour of >>> instead delaying 5.0. >>> >>> On 25 Oct 2023, at 19:40, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'm open to the suggestions of not branching cassandra-5.1 and/or naming >>> a preview release something other than 5.1-alpha1. >>> >>> But… the codebases and release process (and upgrade tests) do not >>> currently support releases with qualifiers that are not alpha, beta, or >>> rc. We can add a preview qualifier to this list, but I would not want to >>> block getting a preview release out only because this wasn't yet in place. >>> >>> Hence the proposal used 5.1-alpha1 simply because that's what we know we >>> can do today. An alpha release also means (typically) the branch. >>> >>> Is anyone up for looking into adding a "preview" qualifier to our >>> release process? >>> This may also solve our previous discussions and desire to have >>> quarterly releases that folk can use through the trunk dev cycle. >>> >>> Personally, with my understanding of timelines in front of us to fully >>> review and stabilise tcm, it makes sense to branch it as soon as it's >>> merged. It's easiest to stabilise it on a branch, and there's definitely >>> the desire and demand to do so, so it won't be getting forgotten or >>> down-prioritised. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 18:07, Jeremiah Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> If we do a 5.1 release why not take it as an opportunity to release >>>>> more things. I am not saying that we will. Just that we should let that >>>>> door open. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Agreed. This is the reason I brought up the possibility of not >>>> branching off 5.1 immediately. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 25, 2023 at 3:17:13 AM, Benjamin Lerer <b.le...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The proposal includes 3 things: >>>>> 1. Do not include TCM and Accord in 5.0 to avoid delaying 5.0 >>>>> 2. The next release will be 5.1 and will include only Accord and TCM >>>>> 3. Merge TCM and Accord right now in 5.1 (making an initial release) >>>>> >>>>> I am fine with question 1 and do not have a strong opinion on which >>>>> way to go. >>>>> 2. Means that every new feature will have to wait for post 5.1 even if >>>>> it is ready before 5.1 is stabilized and shipped. If we do a 5.1 release >>>>> why not take it as an opportunity to release more things. I am not saying >>>>> that we will. Just that we should let that door open. >>>>> 3. There is a need to merge TCM and Accord as maintaining those >>>>> separate branches is costly in terms of time and energy. I fully >>>>> understand >>>>> that. On the other hand merging TCM and Accord will make the TCM review >>>>> harder and I do believe that this second round of review is valuable as it >>>>> already uncovered a valid issue. Nevertheless, I am fine with merging TCM >>>>> as soon as it passes CI and continuing the review after the merge. If we >>>>> cannot meet at least that quality level (Green CI) we should not merge >>>>> just >>>>> for creating an 5.1.alpha release for the summit. >>>>> >>>>> Now, I am totally fine with a preview release without numbering and >>>>> with big warnings that will only serve as a preview for the summit. >>>>> >>>>> Le mer. 25 oct. 2023 à 06:33, Berenguer Blasi < >>>>> berenguerbl...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> I also think there's many good new features in 5.0 already they'd >>>>>> make a >>>>>> good release even on their own. My 2 cts. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 24/10/23 23:20, Brandon Williams wrote: >>>>>> > The catch here is that we don't publish docker images currently. >>>>>> The >>>>>> > C* docker images available are not made by us. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Kind Regards, >>>>>> > Brandon >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 3:31 PM Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >> Let me make that really easy. Hell yes >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Not everybody runs CCM, I've tried but I've met resistance. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Compiling your own version usually involves me saying the words >>>>>> "Yes, ant realclean exists. I'm not trolling you" >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> docker pull <image> works on every OS and curates a single node >>>>>> experience. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 12:37 PM Josh McKenzie < >>>>>> jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>> In order for the project to advertise the release outside the dev@ >>>>>> list it needs to be a formal release. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> That's my reading as well: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-definition >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I wonder if there'd be value in us having a cronned job that'd do >>>>>> nightly docker container builds on trunk + feature branches, archived >>>>>> for N >>>>>> days, and we make that generally known to the dev@ list here so >>>>>> folks that want to poke at the current state of trunk or other branches >>>>>> could do so with very low friction. We'd probably see more engagement on >>>>>> feature branches if it was turn-key easy for other C* devs to spin the up >>>>>> and check them out. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> For what you're talking about here Patrick (a docker image for >>>>>> folks outside the dev@ audience and more user-facing), we'd want to >>>>>> vote on it and go through the formal process. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, at 3:10 PM, Jeremiah Jordan wrote: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> In order for the project to advertise the release outside the dev@ >>>>>> list it needs to be a formal release. That just means that there was a >>>>>> release vote and at least 3 PMC members +1’ed it, and there are more +1 >>>>>> than there are -1, and we follow all the normal release rules. The ASF >>>>>> release process doesn’t care what branch you cut the artifacts from or >>>>>> what >>>>>> version you call it. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> So the project can cut artifacts for and release a 5.1-alpha1, >>>>>> 5.1-dev-preview1, what ever we want to version this thing, from trunk or >>>>>> any other branch name we want. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> -Jeremiah >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> On Oct 24, 2023 at 2:03:41 PM, Patrick McFadin < >>>>>> pmcfa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I would like to have something for developers to use ASAP to try >>>>>> the Accord syntax. Very few people have seen it, and I think there's a >>>>>> learning curve we can start earlier. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> It's my understanding that ASF policy is that it needs to be a >>>>>> project release to create a docker image. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 11:54 AM Jeremiah Jordan < >>>>>> jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> If we decide to go the route of not merging TCM to the 5.0 >>>>>> branch. Do we actually need to immediately cut a 5.1 branch? Can we >>>>>> work >>>>>> on stabilizing things while it is in trunk and cut the 5.1 branch when we >>>>>> actually think we are near releasing? I don’t see any reason we can not >>>>>> cut “preview” artifacts from trunk? >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> -Jeremiah >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> On Oct 24, 2023 at 11:54:25 AM, Jon Haddad < >>>>>> rustyrazorbl...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I guess at the end of the day, shipping a release with a bunch of >>>>>> awesome features is better than holding it back. If there's 2 big >>>>>> releases >>>>>> in 6 months the community isn't any worse off. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> We either ship something, or nothing, and something is probably >>>>>> better. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Jon >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> On 2023/10/24 16:27:04 Patrick McFadin wrote: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> +1 to what you are saying, Josh. Based on the last survey, yes, >>>>>> everyone >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> was excited about Accord, but SAI and UCS were pretty high on the >>>>>> list. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Benedict and I had a good conversation last night, and now I >>>>>> understand >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> more essential details for this conversation. TCM is taking far >>>>>> more work >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> than initially scoped, and Accord depends on a stable TCM. TCM is >>>>>> months >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> behind and that's a critical fact, and one I personally just >>>>>> learned of. I >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> thought things were wrapping up this month, and we were in the >>>>>> testing >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> phase. I get why that's a topic we are dancing around. Nobody >>>>>> wants to say >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> ship dates are slipping because that's part of our culture. It's >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> disappointing and, if new information, an unwelcome surprise, but >>>>>> none of >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> us should be angry or in a blamey mood because I guarantee every >>>>>> one of us >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> has shipped the code late. My reaction yesterday was based on an >>>>>> incorrect >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> assumption. Now that I have a better picture, my point of view is >>>>>> changing. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Josh's point about what's best for users is crucial. Users >>>>>> deserve stable >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> code with a regular cadence of features that make their lives >>>>>> easier. If we >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> put 5.0 on hold for TCM + Accord, users will get neither for a >>>>>> very long >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> time. And I mentioned a disaster yesterday. A bigger disaster >>>>>> would be >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> shipping Accord with a major bug that causes data loss, eroding >>>>>> community >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> trust. Accord has to be the most bulletproof of all bulletproof >>>>>> features. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> The pressure to ship is only going to increase and that's fertile >>>>>> ground >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> for that sort of bug. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> So, taking a step back and with a clearer picture, I support the >>>>>> 5.0 + 5.1 >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> plan mainly because I don't think 5.1 is (or should be) a fast >>>>>> follow. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> For the user community, the communication should be >>>>>> straightforward. TCM + >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Accord are turning out to be much more complicated than was >>>>>> originally >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> scoped, and for good reasons. Our first principle is to provide a >>>>>> stable >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> and reliable system, so as a result, we'll be de-coupling TCM + >>>>>> Accord from >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> 5.0 into a 5.1 branch, which is available in parallel to 5.0 while >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> additional hardening and testing is done. We can communicate this >>>>>> in a blog >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> post., >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> To make this much more palatable to our use community, if we can >>>>>> get a >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> build and docker image available ASAP with Accord, it will allow >>>>>> developers >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> to start playing with the syntax. Up to this point, that hasn't >>>>>> been widely >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> available unless you compile the code yourself. Developers need to >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> understand how this will work in an application, and up to this >>>>>> point, the >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> syntax is text they see in my slides. We need to get some >>>>>> hands-on and that >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> will get our user community engaged on Accord this calendar year. >>>>>> The >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> feedback may even uncover some critical changes we'll need to >>>>>> make. Lack of >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> access to Accord by developers is a critical problem we can fix >>>>>> soon and >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> there will be plenty of excitement there and start building use >>>>>> cases >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> before the final code ships. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I'm bummed but realistic. It sucks that I won't have a pony for >>>>>> Christmas, >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> but maybe one for my birthday? >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Patrick >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 7:23 AM Josh McKenzie < >>>>>> jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> Maybe it won't be a glamorous release but shipping >>>>>> >>>> 5.0 mitigates our worst case scenario. >>>>>> >>>> I disagree with this characterization of 5.0 personally. UCS, >>>>>> SAI, Trie >>>>>> >>>> memtables and sstables, maybe vector ANN if the sub-tasks on >>>>>> C-18715 are >>>>>> >>>> accurate, all combine to make 5.0 a pretty glamorous release IMO >>>>>> >>>> independent of TCM and Accord. Accord is a true paradigm-shift >>>>>> game-changer >>>>>> >>>> so it's easy to think of 5.0 as uneventful in comparison, and >>>>>> TCM helps >>>>>> >>>> resolve one of the biggest pain-points in our system for over a >>>>>> decade, but >>>>>> >>>> I think 5.0 is a very meaty release in its own right today. >>>>>> >>>> Anyway - I agree with you Brandon re: timelines. If things take >>>>>> longer >>>>>> >>>> than we'd hope (which, if I think back, they do roughly 100% of >>>>>> the time on >>>>>> >>>> this project), blocking on these features could both lead to a >>>>>> significant >>>>>> >>>> delay in 5.0 going out as well as increasing pressure and risk >>>>>> of burnout >>>>>> >>>> on the folks working on it. While I believe we all need some >>>>>> balanced >>>>>> >>>> urgency to do our best work, being under the gun for something >>>>>> with a hard >>>>>> >>>> deadline or having an entire project drag along blocked on you >>>>>> is not where >>>>>> >>>> I want any of us to be. >>>>>> >>>> Part of why we talked about going to primarily annual >>>>>> calendar-based >>>>>> >>>> releases was to avoid precisely this situation, where something >>>>>> that >>>>>> >>>> *feels* right at the cusp of merging leads us to delay a release >>>>>> >>>> repeatedly. We discussed this a couple times this year: >>>>>> >>>> 1: >>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/9c5cnn57c7oqw8wzo3zs0dkrm4f17lm3, >>>>>> >>>> where Mick proposed a "soft-freeze" for everything w/out >>>>>> exception and 1st >>>>>> >>>> week October "hard-freeze", and there was assumed to be lazy >>>>>> consensus >>>>>> >>>> 2: >>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/mzj3dq8b7mzf60k6mkby88b9n9ywmsgw, >>>>>> >>>> where we kept along with what we discussed in 1 but added in >>>>>> CEP-30 to be >>>>>> >>>> waivered in as well. >>>>>> >>>> So. We're at a crossroads here where we need to either follow >>>>>> through with >>>>>> >>>> what we all agreed to earlier this year, or acknowledge that our >>>>>> best >>>>>> >>>> intention of calendar-based releases can't stand up to our >>>>>> optimism and >>>>>> >>>> desire to get these features into the next major. >>>>>> >>>> There's no immediate obvious better path to me in terms of >>>>>> what's best for >>>>>> >>>> our users. This is a situation of risk tolerance with a lot of >>>>>> unknowns >>>>>> >>>> that could go either way. >>>>>> >>>> Any light that folks active on TCM and Accord could shed in >>>>>> terms of their >>>>>> >>>> best and worst-case scenarios on timelines for those features >>>>>> might help us >>>>>> >>>> narrow this down a bit. Otherwise, I'm inclined to defer to our >>>>>> past selves >>>>>> >>>> and fall back to "we agreed to yearly calendar releases for good >>>>>> reason. >>>>>> >>>> Let's stick to our guns." >>>>>> >>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, at 9:37 AM, Brandon Williams wrote: >>>>>> >>>> The concern I have with this is that is a big slippery 'if' that >>>>>> >>>> involves development time estimation, and if it tends to take >>>>>> longer >>>>>> >>>> than we estimate (as these things tend to do), then I can see a >>>>>> future >>>>>> >>>> where 5.0 is delayed until the middle of 2024, and I really >>>>>> don't want >>>>>> >>>> that to happen. Maybe it won't be a glamorous release but >>>>>> shipping >>>>>> >>>> 5.0 mitigates our worst case scenario. >>>>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>> >>>> Brandon >>>>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 4:02 PM Dinesh Joshi <djo...@apache.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> I have a strong preference to move out the 5.0 date to have >>>>>> accord and >>>>>> >>>> TCM. I don’t see the point in shipping 5.0 without these features >>>>>> >>>> especially if 5.1 is going to follow close behind it. >>>>>> >>>>> Dinesh >>>>>> >>>>> On Oct 23, 2023, at 4:52 AM, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> The TCM work (CEP-21) is in its review stage but being well >>>>>> past our >>>>>> >>>> cut-off date¹ for merging, and now jeopardising 5.0 GA efforts, >>>>>> I would >>>>>> >>>> like to propose the following. >>>>>> >>>>> We merge TCM and Accord only to trunk. Then branch >>>>>> cassandra-5.1 and >>>>>> >>>> cut an immediate 5.1-alpha1 release. >>>>>> >>>>> I see this as a win-win scenario for us, considering our current >>>>>> >>>> situation. (Though it is unfortunate that Accord is included in >>>>>> this >>>>>> >>>> scenario because we agreed it to be based upon TCM.) >>>>>> >>>>> This will mean… >>>>>> >>>>> - We get to focus on getting 5.0 to beta and GA, which >>>>>> already has a >>>>>> >>>> ton of features users want. >>>>>> >>>>> - We get an alpha release with TCM and Accord into users >>>>>> hands quickly >>>>>> >>>> for broader testing and feedback. >>>>>> >>>>> - We isolate GA efforts on TCM and Accord – giving oss and >>>>>> downstream >>>>>> >>>> engineers time and patience reviewing and testing. TCM will be >>>>>> the biggest >>>>>> >>>> patch ever to land in C*. >>>>>> >>>>> - Give users a choice for a more incremental upgrade >>>>>> approach, given >>>>>> >>>> just how many new features we're putting on them in one year. >>>>>> >>>>> - 5.1 w/ TCM and Accord will maintain its upgrade >>>>>> compatibility with >>>>>> >>>> all 4.x versions, just as if it had landed in 5.0. >>>>>> >>>>> The risks/costs this introduces are >>>>>> >>>>> - If we cannot stabilise TCM and/or Accord on the >>>>>> cassandra-5.1 branch, >>>>>> >>>> and at some point decide to undo this work, while we can throw >>>>>> away the >>>>>> >>>> cassandra-5.1 branch we would need to do a bit of work reverting >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>> changes in trunk. This is a _very_ edge case, as confidence >>>>>> levels on the >>>>>> >>>> design and implementation of both are already tested and high. >>>>>> >>>>> - We will have to maintain an additional branch. I propose >>>>>> that we >>>>>> >>>> treat the 5.1 branch in the same maintenance window as 5.0 (like >>>>>> we have >>>>>> >>>> with 3.0 and 3.11). This also adds the merge path overhead. >>>>>> >>>>> - Reviewing of TCM and Accord will continue to happen >>>>>> post-merge. This >>>>>> >>>> is not our normal practice, but this work will have already >>>>>> received its >>>>>> >>>> two +1s from committers, and such ongoing review effort is akin >>>>>> to GA >>>>>> >>>> stabilisation work on release branches. >>>>>> >>>>> I see no other ok solution in front of us that gets us at least >>>>>> both the >>>>>> >>>> 5.0 beta and TCM+Accord alpha releases this year. Keeping in >>>>>> mind users >>>>>> >>>> demand to start experimenting with these features, and our >>>>>> Cassandra Summit >>>>>> >>>> in December. >>>>>> >>>>> 1) >>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/9c5cnn57c7oqw8wzo3zs0dkrm4f17lm3 >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
