t; > to the speed with which we can evolve it's form and function.
> > >
> > > Strongly agreed.
> > >
> > > > Utopia (and following section)
> > >
> > > Some nods to great potential refactors
> for
> > 4.0 and landed on something like "Users of Apache Cassandra can
> preflight
> > their 4.0 upgrade by runing $tool to clone, upgrade, and compare
> their
> > clusters, ensuring that the upgrade will complete smoothly and
> correctly."
> >
reflight
> > their 4.0 upgrade by runing $tool to clone, upgrade, and compare
> their
> > clusters, ensuring that the upgrade will complete smoothly and
> correctly."
> >
> > > The less friction and less investment we can require from ecosystem
> >
>
> I like the document and there's a lot that has me nodding. Toward the
> opening statement on "empirical evidence to quantify relative stability,"
> I'd love to revisit discussion on quantifying attributes like these here:
> https://cwiki.apa
desired behavior.
>
> +1
>
> ––
>
> I like the document and there's a lot that has me nodding. Toward the
> opening statement on "empirical evidence to quantify relative stability,"
> I'd love to revisit discussion on quantifying attributes like these here:
____
From: David Capwell
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 6:23 PM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] A point of view on Testing Cassandra
I am also not fully clear on the motives, but welcome anything which helps
bring in better and more robust t
I am also not fully clear on the motives, but welcome anything which helps
bring in better and more robust testing; thanks for starting this.
Since I can not comment in the doc I have to copy/paste and put here... =(
Reality
> ...
> investing in improving our smoke and integration testing as much
The purpose is purely to signal a point of view on the state of testing in
the codebase, some shortcomings of the architecture, and what a few of us
are doing and further planning to do about it. Kind of a "prompt discussion
if anyone has a wild allergic reaction to it, or encourage collaboration i
It does raise the bar to critiquing the document though, but perhaps that's
also a feature.
Perhaps we can first discuss the purpose of the document? It seems to be a mix
of mission statement for the project, as well as your own near term roadmap?
Should we interpret it only as an advertisemen
>
> Can you please allow comments on the doc so we can leave feedback.
>
> Doc is view only; figured we could keep this to the ML.
>
That's a feature, not a bug.
Happy to chat here or on slack w/anyone. This is a complex topic so
long-form or high bandwidth communication is a better fit than gdo
Can you please allow comments on the doc so we can leave feedback.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 2:16 PM Joshua McKenzie
wrote:
> Link:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ktuBWpD2NLurB9PUvmbwGgrXsgnyU58koOseZAfaFBQ/edit#
>
>
> Myself and a few other contributors are working with this point of vie
Link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ktuBWpD2NLurB9PUvmbwGgrXsgnyU58koOseZAfaFBQ/edit#
Myself and a few other contributors are working with this point of view as
our frame of where we're going to work on improving testing on the project.
I figured it might be useful to foster collaboration m
12 matches
Mail list logo
