Failing tests 2016-08-26 [cassandra-3.9]

[Joel Knighton]

No tests were run today since no commits were made to the 3.9 branch. 3.9
is looking stable and very close to being ready for release; only a few
outstanding flaky test failures remain.

Starting next week, I will focus on including trunk test failures in these
digests, while also including 3.9 failures when the tests are run.

Re: #cassandra-dev IRC logging

[Dave Brosius]

If you wish to unsubscribe, send an email to

mailto://dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org


On 08/26/2016 04:49 PM, Gvb Subrahmanyam wrote:

Please remove me from - dev@cassandra.apache.org

-Original Message-
From: Jake Farrell [mailto:jfarr...@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 4:36 PM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: #cassandra-dev IRC logging

asfbot can log to wilderness for backup, but it does not send out digests.
I've seen a couple of projects starting to test out and use slack/hipchat and 
then use sameroom to connect irc so conversations are not separated and people 
can use their favorite client of choice

-Jake

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Edward Capriolo 
wrote:


Yes. I did. My bad.

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jason Brown  wrote:


Ed, did you mean this to post this to the other active thread today,
the one about github pull requests? (just want to make sure I'm
understanding correctly :) )

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Edward Capriolo


wrote:


+1 to both as well

On 8/26/16, 11:59 AM, "Tyler Hobbs"  wrote:


+1 on doing this and using ASFBot in particular.

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Jason Brown


wrote:

@Dave ASFBot looks like a winner. If others are on board with

this,

I

can

work on getting it up and going.

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Dave Lester <

dave_les...@apple.com>

wrote:


+1. Check out ASFBot for logging IRC, along with other

integrations.[1]




Disclaimer:  This message and the information contained herein is proprietary 
and confidential and subject to the Tech Mahindra policy statement, you may 
review the policy at http://www.techmahindra.com/Disclaimer.html externally 
http://tim.techmahindra.com/tim/disclaimer.html internally within TechMahindra.

Re: #cassandra-dev IRC logging

[Nate McCall]

+1 on asfbot

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jake Farrell  wrote:

> asfbot can log to wilderness for backup, but it does not send out digests.
> I've seen a couple of projects starting to test out and use slack/hipchat
> and then use sameroom to connect irc so conversations are not separated and
> people can use their favorite client of choice
>
> -Jake
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Edward Capriolo 
> wrote:
>
> > Yes. I did. My bad.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jason Brown 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ed, did you mean this to post this to the other active thread today,
> the
> > > one about github pull requests? (just want to make sure I'm
> understanding
> > > correctly :) )
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Edward Capriolo <
> edlinuxg...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > One thing to watch out for. The way apache-gossip is setup the PR's
> get
> > > > sent to the dev list. However the address is not part of the list so
> > the
> > > > project owners get an email asking to approve/reject every PR and
> > comment
> > > > on the PR.
> > > >
> > > > This is ok because we have a small quite group but you probably do
> not
> > > want
> > > > that with the number of SCM changes in the cassandra project.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Jeff Jirsa <
> > jeff.ji...@crowdstrike.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 to both as well
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8/26/16, 11:59 AM, "Tyler Hobbs"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >+1 on doing this and using ASFBot in particular.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Jason Brown <
> jasedbr...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> @Dave ASFBot looks like a winner. If others are on board with
> > this,
> > > I
> > > > > can
> > > > > >> work on getting it up and going.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Dave Lester <
> > > dave_les...@apple.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > +1. Check out ASFBot for logging IRC, along with other
> > > > > integrations.[1]
> > > > > >> >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
-
Nate McCall
Wellington, NZ
@zznate

CTO
Apache Cassandra Consulting
http://www.thelastpickle.com

RE: #cassandra-dev IRC logging

[Gvb Subrahmanyam]

Please remove me from - dev@cassandra.apache.org

-Original Message-
From: Jake Farrell [mailto:jfarr...@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 4:36 PM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: #cassandra-dev IRC logging

asfbot can log to wilderness for backup, but it does not send out digests.
I've seen a couple of projects starting to test out and use slack/hipchat and 
then use sameroom to connect irc so conversations are not separated and people 
can use their favorite client of choice

-Jake

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Edward Capriolo 
wrote:

> Yes. I did. My bad.
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jason Brown  wrote:
>
> > Ed, did you mean this to post this to the other active thread today, 
> > the one about github pull requests? (just want to make sure I'm 
> > understanding correctly :) )
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Edward Capriolo 
> >  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > One thing to watch out for. The way apache-gossip is setup the 
> > > PR's get sent to the dev list. However the address is not part of 
> > > the list so
> the
> > > project owners get an email asking to approve/reject every PR and
> comment
> > > on the PR.
> > >
> > > This is ok because we have a small quite group but you probably do 
> > > not
> > want
> > > that with the number of SCM changes in the cassandra project.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Jeff Jirsa <
> jeff.ji...@crowdstrike.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 to both as well
> > > >
> > > > On 8/26/16, 11:59 AM, "Tyler Hobbs"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >+1 on doing this and using ASFBot in particular.
> > > > >
> > > > >On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Jason Brown 
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> @Dave ASFBot looks like a winner. If others are on board with
> this,
> > I
> > > > can
> > > > >> work on getting it up and going.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Dave Lester <
> > dave_les...@apple.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > +1. Check out ASFBot for logging IRC, along with other
> > > > integrations.[1]
> > > > >> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



Disclaimer:  This message and the information contained herein is proprietary 
and confidential and subject to the Tech Mahindra policy statement, you may 
review the policy at http://www.techmahindra.com/Disclaimer.html externally 
http://tim.techmahindra.com/tim/disclaimer.html internally within TechMahindra.

Re: #cassandra-dev IRC logging

[Jake Farrell]

asfbot can log to wilderness for backup, but it does not send out digests.
I've seen a couple of projects starting to test out and use slack/hipchat
and then use sameroom to connect irc so conversations are not separated and
people can use their favorite client of choice

-Jake

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Edward Capriolo 
wrote:

> Yes. I did. My bad.
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jason Brown  wrote:
>
> > Ed, did you mean this to post this to the other active thread today, the
> > one about github pull requests? (just want to make sure I'm understanding
> > correctly :) )
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Edward Capriolo  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > One thing to watch out for. The way apache-gossip is setup the PR's get
> > > sent to the dev list. However the address is not part of the list so
> the
> > > project owners get an email asking to approve/reject every PR and
> comment
> > > on the PR.
> > >
> > > This is ok because we have a small quite group but you probably do not
> > want
> > > that with the number of SCM changes in the cassandra project.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Jeff Jirsa <
> jeff.ji...@crowdstrike.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 to both as well
> > > >
> > > > On 8/26/16, 11:59 AM, "Tyler Hobbs"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >+1 on doing this and using ASFBot in particular.
> > > > >
> > > > >On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Jason Brown 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> @Dave ASFBot looks like a winner. If others are on board with
> this,
> > I
> > > > can
> > > > >> work on getting it up and going.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Dave Lester <
> > dave_les...@apple.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > +1. Check out ASFBot for logging IRC, along with other
> > > > integrations.[1]
> > > > >> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: #cassandra-dev IRC logging

[Edward Capriolo]

Yes. I did. My bad.

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jason Brown  wrote:

> Ed, did you mean this to post this to the other active thread today, the
> one about github pull requests? (just want to make sure I'm understanding
> correctly :) )
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Edward Capriolo 
> wrote:
>
> > One thing to watch out for. The way apache-gossip is setup the PR's get
> > sent to the dev list. However the address is not part of the list so the
> > project owners get an email asking to approve/reject every PR and comment
> > on the PR.
> >
> > This is ok because we have a small quite group but you probably do not
> want
> > that with the number of SCM changes in the cassandra project.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to both as well
> > >
> > > On 8/26/16, 11:59 AM, "Tyler Hobbs"  wrote:
> > >
> > > >+1 on doing this and using ASFBot in particular.
> > > >
> > > >On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Jason Brown 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> @Dave ASFBot looks like a winner. If others are on board with this,
> I
> > > can
> > > >> work on getting it up and going.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Dave Lester <
> dave_les...@apple.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > +1. Check out ASFBot for logging IRC, along with other
> > > integrations.[1]
> > > >> >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Github pull requests

[Jason Brown]

@Jeremiah, makes sense to send to commits@

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Jeremiah D Jordan <
jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 for PR’s but if we start using them I think we should get them sent to
> commits@ instead of the dev@ they are currently sent to.
>
> -Jeremiah
>
> > On Aug 26, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Andres de la Peña 
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 to GitHub PRs, I think it will make things easier.
> >
> > El viernes, 26 de agosto de 2016, Jason Brown 
> > escribió:
> >
> >> D'oh, forgot to explicitly state that I am +1 one on the github PR
> proposal
> >> :)
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Jason Brown  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> It seems to me we might get more contributions if we can lower the
> >> barrier
> >>> to participation. (see Jeff Beck's statement above)
> >>>
> >>> +1 to Aleksey's sentiment about the Docs contributions.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Mark Thomas  >> > wrote:
> >>>
>  On 26/08/2016 17:11, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> > Mark, I, for one, will be happy with the level of GitHub integration
>  that Spark has, formal or otherwise.
> 
>  If Cassandra doesn't already have it, that should be a simple request
> to
>  infra.
> 
> > As it stands right now, none of the committers/PMC members have any
>  control over Cassandra Github mirror.
> >
> > Which, among other things, means that we cannot even close the
>  erroneously opened PRs ourselves,
> > they just accumulate unless the PR authors is kind enough to close
>  them. That’s really frustrating.
> 
>  No PMC currently has the ability to directly close PRs on GitHub. This
>  is one of the things on the infra TODO list that is being looked at.
> You
>  can close them via a commit comment that the ASF GitHub tooling picks
> >> up.
> 
>  Mark
> 
> 
> >
> > --
> > AY
> >
> > On 26 August 2016 at 17:07:29, Mark Thomas (ma...@apache.org
> >> ) wrote:
> >
> > On 26/08/2016 16:33, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of
>  creating
> >> a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to
> demonstrate
> >> intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of
>  changes
> >> in Jira.
> >>
> >> But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a
>  github
> >> pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making
>  github
> >> the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way
> >> around. (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not
>  sure.)
> >>
> >> Should we revisit our policy here?
> >
> > At the moment, the ASF Git repo is always the master, with GitHub as
> a
> > mirror. That allows push requests to be made via GitHub.
> >
> > Infra is exploring options for giving PMCs greater control over
> GitHub
> > config (including allowing GitHub to be the master with a golden copy
> > held at the ASF) but that is a work in progress.
> >
> > As far as intent to contribute goes, there does appear to be a trend
> > that the newer a project is to the ASF, the more formal the project
> > makes process around recording intent to contribute. (The same can be
> > said for other processes as well like Jira config.)
> >
> > It is worth noting that all the ASF requires is that there is an
> >> intent
> > to contribute. Anything that can be reasonably read that way is fine.
> > Many PMCs happily accept patches sent to the dev list (although they
> >> may
> > ask them to be attached to issues more so they don't get forgotten
> >> than
> > anything else). Pull requests are certainly acceptable.
> >
> > My personal recommendation is don't put more formal process in place
> > than you actually need. Social controls are a lot more flexible than
> > technical ones and generally have a much lower overhead.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >>
> >> [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%
> 3Aclosed
> >
> >
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andrés de la Peña
> >
> > Vía de las dos Castillas, 33, Ática 4, 3ª Planta
> > 28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid
> > Tel: +34 91 828 6473 // www.stratio.com // *@stratiobd
> > *
>
>

Re: #cassandra-dev IRC logging

[Jason Brown]

Ed, did you mean this to post this to the other active thread today, the
one about github pull requests? (just want to make sure I'm understanding
correctly :) )

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Edward Capriolo 
wrote:

> One thing to watch out for. The way apache-gossip is setup the PR's get
> sent to the dev list. However the address is not part of the list so the
> project owners get an email asking to approve/reject every PR and comment
> on the PR.
>
> This is ok because we have a small quite group but you probably do not want
> that with the number of SCM changes in the cassandra project.
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
> wrote:
>
> > +1 to both as well
> >
> > On 8/26/16, 11:59 AM, "Tyler Hobbs"  wrote:
> >
> > >+1 on doing this and using ASFBot in particular.
> > >
> > >On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Jason Brown 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> @Dave ASFBot looks like a winner. If others are on board with this, I
> > can
> > >> work on getting it up and going.
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Dave Lester 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > +1. Check out ASFBot for logging IRC, along with other
> > integrations.[1]
> > >> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Github pull requests

[Jeremiah D Jordan]

+1 for PR’s but if we start using them I think we should get them sent to 
commits@ instead of the dev@ they are currently sent to.

-Jeremiah

> On Aug 26, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Andres de la Peña  wrote:
> 
> +1 to GitHub PRs, I think it will make things easier.
> 
> El viernes, 26 de agosto de 2016, Jason Brown 
> escribió:
> 
>> D'oh, forgot to explicitly state that I am +1 one on the github PR proposal
>> :)
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Jason Brown > > wrote:
>> 
>>> It seems to me we might get more contributions if we can lower the
>> barrier
>>> to participation. (see Jeff Beck's statement above)
>>> 
>>> +1 to Aleksey's sentiment about the Docs contributions.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Mark Thomas > > wrote:
>>> 
 On 26/08/2016 17:11, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> Mark, I, for one, will be happy with the level of GitHub integration
 that Spark has, formal or otherwise.
 
 If Cassandra doesn't already have it, that should be a simple request to
 infra.
 
> As it stands right now, none of the committers/PMC members have any
 control over Cassandra Github mirror.
> 
> Which, among other things, means that we cannot even close the
 erroneously opened PRs ourselves,
> they just accumulate unless the PR authors is kind enough to close
 them. That’s really frustrating.
 
 No PMC currently has the ability to directly close PRs on GitHub. This
 is one of the things on the infra TODO list that is being looked at. You
 can close them via a commit comment that the ASF GitHub tooling picks
>> up.
 
 Mark
 
 
> 
> --
> AY
> 
> On 26 August 2016 at 17:07:29, Mark Thomas (ma...@apache.org
>> ) wrote:
> 
> On 26/08/2016 16:33, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of
 creating
>> a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate
>> intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of
 changes
>> in Jira.
>> 
>> But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a
 github
>> pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making
 github
>> the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way
>> around. (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not
 sure.)
>> 
>> Should we revisit our policy here?
> 
> At the moment, the ASF Git repo is always the master, with GitHub as a
> mirror. That allows push requests to be made via GitHub.
> 
> Infra is exploring options for giving PMCs greater control over GitHub
> config (including allowing GitHub to be the master with a golden copy
> held at the ASF) but that is a work in progress.
> 
> As far as intent to contribute goes, there does appear to be a trend
> that the newer a project is to the ASF, the more formal the project
> makes process around recording intent to contribute. (The same can be
> said for other processes as well like Jira config.)
> 
> It is worth noting that all the ASF requires is that there is an
>> intent
> to contribute. Anything that can be reasonably read that way is fine.
> Many PMCs happily accept patches sent to the dev list (although they
>> may
> ask them to be attached to issues more so they don't get forgotten
>> than
> anything else). Pull requests are certainly acceptable.
> 
> My personal recommendation is don't put more formal process in place
> than you actually need. Social controls are a lot more flexible than
> technical ones and generally have a much lower overhead.
> 
> Mark
> 
>> 
>> [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
> 
> 
 
 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andrés de la Peña
> 
> Vía de las dos Castillas, 33, Ática 4, 3ª Planta
> 28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid
> Tel: +34 91 828 6473 // www.stratio.com // *@stratiobd
> *

Re: #cassandra-dev IRC logging

[Edward Capriolo]

One thing to watch out for. The way apache-gossip is setup the PR's get
sent to the dev list. However the address is not part of the list so the
project owners get an email asking to approve/reject every PR and comment
on the PR.

This is ok because we have a small quite group but you probably do not want
that with the number of SCM changes in the cassandra project.

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
wrote:

> +1 to both as well
>
> On 8/26/16, 11:59 AM, "Tyler Hobbs"  wrote:
>
> >+1 on doing this and using ASFBot in particular.
> >
> >On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Jason Brown 
> wrote:
> >
> >> @Dave ASFBot looks like a winner. If others are on board with this, I
> can
> >> work on getting it up and going.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Dave Lester 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > +1. Check out ASFBot for logging IRC, along with other
> integrations.[1]
> >> >
>
>

Re: #cassandra-dev IRC logging

[Jeff Jirsa]

+1 to both as well

On 8/26/16, 11:59 AM, "Tyler Hobbs"  wrote:

>+1 on doing this and using ASFBot in particular.
>
>On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Jason Brown  wrote:
>
>> @Dave ASFBot looks like a winner. If others are on board with this, I can
>> work on getting it up and going.
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Dave Lester 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > +1. Check out ASFBot for logging IRC, along with other integrations.[1]
>> >



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Github pull requests

[Andres de la Peña]

+1 to GitHub PRs, I think it will make things easier.

El viernes, 26 de agosto de 2016, Jason Brown 
escribió:

> D'oh, forgot to explicitly state that I am +1 one on the github PR proposal
> :)
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Jason Brown  > wrote:
>
> > It seems to me we might get more contributions if we can lower the
> barrier
> > to participation. (see Jeff Beck's statement above)
> >
> > +1 to Aleksey's sentiment about the Docs contributions.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Mark Thomas  > wrote:
> >
> >> On 26/08/2016 17:11, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> >> > Mark, I, for one, will be happy with the level of GitHub integration
> >> that Spark has, formal or otherwise.
> >>
> >> If Cassandra doesn't already have it, that should be a simple request to
> >> infra.
> >>
> >> > As it stands right now, none of the committers/PMC members have any
> >> control over Cassandra Github mirror.
> >> >
> >> > Which, among other things, means that we cannot even close the
> >> erroneously opened PRs ourselves,
> >> > they just accumulate unless the PR authors is kind enough to close
> >> them. That’s really frustrating.
> >>
> >> No PMC currently has the ability to directly close PRs on GitHub. This
> >> is one of the things on the infra TODO list that is being looked at. You
> >> can close them via a commit comment that the ASF GitHub tooling picks
> up.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > AY
> >> >
> >> > On 26 August 2016 at 17:07:29, Mark Thomas (ma...@apache.org
> ) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 26/08/2016 16:33, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >>
> >> >> Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of
> >> creating
> >> >> a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate
> >> >> intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of
> >> changes
> >> >> in Jira.
> >> >>
> >> >> But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a
> >> github
> >> >> pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making
> >> github
> >> >> the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way
> >> >> around. (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not
> >> sure.)
> >> >>
> >> >> Should we revisit our policy here?
> >> >
> >> > At the moment, the ASF Git repo is always the master, with GitHub as a
> >> > mirror. That allows push requests to be made via GitHub.
> >> >
> >> > Infra is exploring options for giving PMCs greater control over GitHub
> >> > config (including allowing GitHub to be the master with a golden copy
> >> > held at the ASF) but that is a work in progress.
> >> >
> >> > As far as intent to contribute goes, there does appear to be a trend
> >> > that the newer a project is to the ASF, the more formal the project
> >> > makes process around recording intent to contribute. (The same can be
> >> > said for other processes as well like Jira config.)
> >> >
> >> > It is worth noting that all the ASF requires is that there is an
> intent
> >> > to contribute. Anything that can be reasonably read that way is fine.
> >> > Many PMCs happily accept patches sent to the dev list (although they
> may
> >> > ask them to be attached to issues more so they don't get forgotten
> than
> >> > anything else). Pull requests are certainly acceptable.
> >> >
> >> > My personal recommendation is don't put more formal process in place
> >> > than you actually need. Social controls are a lot more flexible than
> >> > technical ones and generally have a much lower overhead.
> >> >
> >> > Mark
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>


-- 
Andrés de la Peña

Vía de las dos Castillas, 33, Ática 4, 3ª Planta
28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid
Tel: +34 91 828 6473 // www.stratio.com // *@stratiobd
*

Re: #cassandra-dev IRC logging

[Dave Lester]

+1. Check out ASFBot for logging IRC, along with other integrations.[1]

ASFBot can also be used for record keeping for IRC meetings (example [3]) which 
can automatically be sent to the appropriate apache mailing list. All other 
logs are archived online. [4] It’d easy enough to link to those archived logs 
via the website, etc.

[1] http://wilderness.apache.org/manual.html 

[3] http://wilderness.apache.org/#meetings 

[4] http://wilderness.apache.org/channels/#logs-#aurora 


> On Aug 26, 2016, at 11:17 AM, Jason Brown  wrote:
> 
> +1. How/where will this run? Is there any apache infra that we can make use
> of?
> 
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Jake Luciani  wrote:
> 
>> +1 so long as it filters out the join/leave stuff :)
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> There exists a #cassandra-dev IRC channel that’s historically been used
>> by
>>> developers discussing the project – while it’s public, it’s not archived,
>>> and it’s not a mailing list. The ASF encourages all discussion to be
>>> archived, and ideally, archived on a public mailing list.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jake suggested, and I want to propose on the list, that we copy a log of
>>> that channel (minus join/part activity) to dev@ either daily or weekly.
>>> We’ll need to make sure we comply with Freenode’s IRC logging policy, but
>>> the project / developers receives the best of both worlds – fast, real
>> time
>>> chat but also public archives/visibility for people who aren’t online at
>> a
>>> given moment. The volume may be a bit higher than most of us have come
>>> expect from the list, but it brings the project closer to doing things in
>>> The Apache Way, and we can give it an easily-filtered subject for folks
>> who
>>> don’t want that noise.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> http://twitter.com/tjake
>> 

Re: #cassandra-dev IRC logging

[Mark Thomas]

On 26/08/2016 19:17, Jason Brown wrote:
> +1. How/where will this run? Is there any apache infra that we can make use
> of?

Don't know. Checking...

Mark


> 
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Jake Luciani  wrote:
> 
>> +1 so long as it filters out the join/leave stuff :)
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There exists a #cassandra-dev IRC channel that’s historically been used
>> by
>>> developers discussing the project – while it’s public, it’s not archived,
>>> and it’s not a mailing list. The ASF encourages all discussion to be
>>> archived, and ideally, archived on a public mailing list.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jake suggested, and I want to propose on the list, that we copy a log of
>>> that channel (minus join/part activity) to dev@ either daily or weekly.
>>> We’ll need to make sure we comply with Freenode’s IRC logging policy, but
>>> the project / developers receives the best of both worlds – fast, real
>> time
>>> chat but also public archives/visibility for people who aren’t online at
>> a
>>> given moment. The volume may be a bit higher than most of us have come
>>> expect from the list, but it brings the project closer to doing things in
>>> The Apache Way, and we can give it an easily-filtered subject for folks
>> who
>>> don’t want that noise.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://twitter.com/tjake
>>
> 

Re: Github pull requests

[Jason Brown]

D'oh, forgot to explicitly state that I am +1 one on the github PR proposal
:)

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Jason Brown  wrote:

> It seems to me we might get more contributions if we can lower the barrier
> to participation. (see Jeff Beck's statement above)
>
> +1 to Aleksey's sentiment about the Docs contributions.
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Mark Thomas  wrote:
>
>> On 26/08/2016 17:11, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
>> > Mark, I, for one, will be happy with the level of GitHub integration
>> that Spark has, formal or otherwise.
>>
>> If Cassandra doesn't already have it, that should be a simple request to
>> infra.
>>
>> > As it stands right now, none of the committers/PMC members have any
>> control over Cassandra Github mirror.
>> >
>> > Which, among other things, means that we cannot even close the
>> erroneously opened PRs ourselves,
>> > they just accumulate unless the PR authors is kind enough to close
>> them. That’s really frustrating.
>>
>> No PMC currently has the ability to directly close PRs on GitHub. This
>> is one of the things on the infra TODO list that is being looked at. You
>> can close them via a commit comment that the ASF GitHub tooling picks up.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> >
>> > --
>> > AY
>> >
>> > On 26 August 2016 at 17:07:29, Mark Thomas (ma...@apache.org) wrote:
>> >
>> > On 26/08/2016 16:33, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of
>> creating
>> >> a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate
>> >> intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of
>> changes
>> >> in Jira.
>> >>
>> >> But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a
>> github
>> >> pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making
>> github
>> >> the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way
>> >> around. (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not
>> sure.)
>> >>
>> >> Should we revisit our policy here?
>> >
>> > At the moment, the ASF Git repo is always the master, with GitHub as a
>> > mirror. That allows push requests to be made via GitHub.
>> >
>> > Infra is exploring options for giving PMCs greater control over GitHub
>> > config (including allowing GitHub to be the master with a golden copy
>> > held at the ASF) but that is a work in progress.
>> >
>> > As far as intent to contribute goes, there does appear to be a trend
>> > that the newer a project is to the ASF, the more formal the project
>> > makes process around recording intent to contribute. (The same can be
>> > said for other processes as well like Jira config.)
>> >
>> > It is worth noting that all the ASF requires is that there is an intent
>> > to contribute. Anything that can be reasonably read that way is fine.
>> > Many PMCs happily accept patches sent to the dev list (although they may
>> > ask them to be attached to issues more so they don't get forgotten than
>> > anything else). Pull requests are certainly acceptable.
>> >
>> > My personal recommendation is don't put more formal process in place
>> > than you actually need. Social controls are a lot more flexible than
>> > technical ones and generally have a much lower overhead.
>> >
>> > Mark
>> >
>> >>
>> >> [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: Github pull requests

[Jonathan Haddad]

+1 to officially supporting GitHub PRs.

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:07 AM Jason Brown  wrote:

> It seems to me we might get more contributions if we can lower the barrier
> to participation. (see Jeff Beck's statement above)
>
> +1 to Aleksey's sentiment about the Docs contributions.
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Mark Thomas  wrote:
>
> > On 26/08/2016 17:11, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> > > Mark, I, for one, will be happy with the level of GitHub integration
> > that Spark has, formal or otherwise.
> >
> > If Cassandra doesn't already have it, that should be a simple request to
> > infra.
> >
> > > As it stands right now, none of the committers/PMC members have any
> > control over Cassandra Github mirror.
> > >
> > > Which, among other things, means that we cannot even close the
> > erroneously opened PRs ourselves,
> > > they just accumulate unless the PR authors is kind enough to close
> them.
> > That’s really frustrating.
> >
> > No PMC currently has the ability to directly close PRs on GitHub. This
> > is one of the things on the infra TODO list that is being looked at. You
> > can close them via a commit comment that the ASF GitHub tooling picks up.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > AY
> > >
> > > On 26 August 2016 at 17:07:29, Mark Thomas (ma...@apache.org) wrote:
> > >
> > > On 26/08/2016 16:33, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of
> > creating
> > >> a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate
> > >> intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of
> > changes
> > >> in Jira.
> > >>
> > >> But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a
> github
> > >> pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making
> github
> > >> the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way
> > >> around. (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not
> sure.)
> > >>
> > >> Should we revisit our policy here?
> > >
> > > At the moment, the ASF Git repo is always the master, with GitHub as a
> > > mirror. That allows push requests to be made via GitHub.
> > >
> > > Infra is exploring options for giving PMCs greater control over GitHub
> > > config (including allowing GitHub to be the master with a golden copy
> > > held at the ASF) but that is a work in progress.
> > >
> > > As far as intent to contribute goes, there does appear to be a trend
> > > that the newer a project is to the ASF, the more formal the project
> > > makes process around recording intent to contribute. (The same can be
> > > said for other processes as well like Jira config.)
> > >
> > > It is worth noting that all the ASF requires is that there is an intent
> > > to contribute. Anything that can be reasonably read that way is fine.
> > > Many PMCs happily accept patches sent to the dev list (although they
> may
> > > ask them to be attached to issues more so they don't get forgotten than
> > > anything else). Pull requests are certainly acceptable.
> > >
> > > My personal recommendation is don't put more formal process in place
> > > than you actually need. Social controls are a lot more flexible than
> > > technical ones and generally have a much lower overhead.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > >>
> > >> [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Re: #cassandra-dev IRC logging

[Jason Brown]

+1. How/where will this run? Is there any apache infra that we can make use
of?

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Jake Luciani  wrote:

> +1 so long as it filters out the join/leave stuff :)
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
> wrote:
>
> > There exists a #cassandra-dev IRC channel that’s historically been used
> by
> > developers discussing the project – while it’s public, it’s not archived,
> > and it’s not a mailing list. The ASF encourages all discussion to be
> > archived, and ideally, archived on a public mailing list.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jake suggested, and I want to propose on the list, that we copy a log of
> > that channel (minus join/part activity) to dev@ either daily or weekly.
> > We’ll need to make sure we comply with Freenode’s IRC logging policy, but
> > the project / developers receives the best of both worlds – fast, real
> time
> > chat but also public archives/visibility for people who aren’t online at
> a
> > given moment. The volume may be a bit higher than most of us have come
> > expect from the list, but it brings the project closer to doing things in
> > The Apache Way, and we can give it an easily-filtered subject for folks
> who
> > don’t want that noise.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://twitter.com/tjake
>

Re: Github pull requests

[Jason Brown]

It seems to me we might get more contributions if we can lower the barrier
to participation. (see Jeff Beck's statement above)

+1 to Aleksey's sentiment about the Docs contributions.

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Mark Thomas  wrote:

> On 26/08/2016 17:11, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> > Mark, I, for one, will be happy with the level of GitHub integration
> that Spark has, formal or otherwise.
>
> If Cassandra doesn't already have it, that should be a simple request to
> infra.
>
> > As it stands right now, none of the committers/PMC members have any
> control over Cassandra Github mirror.
> >
> > Which, among other things, means that we cannot even close the
> erroneously opened PRs ourselves,
> > they just accumulate unless the PR authors is kind enough to close them.
> That’s really frustrating.
>
> No PMC currently has the ability to directly close PRs on GitHub. This
> is one of the things on the infra TODO list that is being looked at. You
> can close them via a commit comment that the ASF GitHub tooling picks up.
>
> Mark
>
>
> >
> > --
> > AY
> >
> > On 26 August 2016 at 17:07:29, Mark Thomas (ma...@apache.org) wrote:
> >
> > On 26/08/2016 16:33, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of
> creating
> >> a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate
> >> intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of
> changes
> >> in Jira.
> >>
> >> But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a github
> >> pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making github
> >> the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way
> >> around. (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not sure.)
> >>
> >> Should we revisit our policy here?
> >
> > At the moment, the ASF Git repo is always the master, with GitHub as a
> > mirror. That allows push requests to be made via GitHub.
> >
> > Infra is exploring options for giving PMCs greater control over GitHub
> > config (including allowing GitHub to be the master with a golden copy
> > held at the ASF) but that is a work in progress.
> >
> > As far as intent to contribute goes, there does appear to be a trend
> > that the newer a project is to the ASF, the more formal the project
> > makes process around recording intent to contribute. (The same can be
> > said for other processes as well like Jira config.)
> >
> > It is worth noting that all the ASF requires is that there is an intent
> > to contribute. Anything that can be reasonably read that way is fine.
> > Many PMCs happily accept patches sent to the dev list (although they may
> > ask them to be attached to issues more so they don't get forgotten than
> > anything else). Pull requests are certainly acceptable.
> >
> > My personal recommendation is don't put more formal process in place
> > than you actually need. Social controls are a lot more flexible than
> > technical ones and generally have a much lower overhead.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >>
> >> [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
> >
> >
>
>

Re: #cassandra-dev IRC logging

[Jake Luciani]

+1 so long as it filters out the join/leave stuff :)

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Jeff Jirsa 
wrote:

> There exists a #cassandra-dev IRC channel that’s historically been used by
> developers discussing the project – while it’s public, it’s not archived,
> and it’s not a mailing list. The ASF encourages all discussion to be
> archived, and ideally, archived on a public mailing list.
>
>
>
> Jake suggested, and I want to propose on the list, that we copy a log of
> that channel (minus join/part activity) to dev@ either daily or weekly.
> We’ll need to make sure we comply with Freenode’s IRC logging policy, but
> the project / developers receives the best of both worlds – fast, real time
> chat but also public archives/visibility for people who aren’t online at a
> given moment. The volume may be a bit higher than most of us have come
> expect from the list, but it brings the project closer to doing things in
> The Apache Way, and we can give it an easily-filtered subject for folks who
> don’t want that noise.
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
http://twitter.com/tjake

#cassandra-dev IRC logging

[Jeff Jirsa]

There exists a #cassandra-dev IRC channel that’s historically been used by 
developers discussing the project – while it’s public, it’s not archived, and 
it’s not a mailing list. The ASF encourages all discussion to be archived, and 
ideally, archived on a public mailing list. 

 

Jake suggested, and I want to propose on the list, that we copy a log of that 
channel (minus join/part activity) to dev@ either daily or weekly. We’ll need 
to make sure we comply with Freenode’s IRC logging policy, but the project / 
developers receives the best of both worlds – fast, real time chat but also 
public archives/visibility for people who aren’t online at a given moment. The 
volume may be a bit higher than most of us have come expect from the list, but 
it brings the project closer to doing things in The Apache Way, and we can give 
it an easily-filtered subject for folks who don’t want that noise.

 

 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Github pull requests

[Mark Thomas]

On 26/08/2016 17:11, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> Mark, I, for one, will be happy with the level of GitHub integration that 
> Spark has, formal or otherwise.

If Cassandra doesn't already have it, that should be a simple request to
infra.

> As it stands right now, none of the committers/PMC members have any control 
> over Cassandra Github mirror.
> 
> Which, among other things, means that we cannot even close the erroneously 
> opened PRs ourselves,
> they just accumulate unless the PR authors is kind enough to close them. 
> That’s really frustrating.

No PMC currently has the ability to directly close PRs on GitHub. This
is one of the things on the infra TODO list that is being looked at. You
can close them via a commit comment that the ASF GitHub tooling picks up.

Mark


> 
> -- 
> AY
> 
> On 26 August 2016 at 17:07:29, Mark Thomas (ma...@apache.org) wrote:
> 
> On 26/08/2016 16:33, Jonathan Ellis wrote:  
>> Hi all,  
>>  
>> Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of creating  
>> a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate  
>> intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of changes  
>> in Jira.  
>>  
>> But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a github  
>> pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making github  
>> the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way  
>> around. (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not sure.)  
>>  
>> Should we revisit our policy here?  
> 
> At the moment, the ASF Git repo is always the master, with GitHub as a  
> mirror. That allows push requests to be made via GitHub.  
> 
> Infra is exploring options for giving PMCs greater control over GitHub  
> config (including allowing GitHub to be the master with a golden copy  
> held at the ASF) but that is a work in progress.  
> 
> As far as intent to contribute goes, there does appear to be a trend  
> that the newer a project is to the ASF, the more formal the project  
> makes process around recording intent to contribute. (The same can be  
> said for other processes as well like Jira config.)  
> 
> It is worth noting that all the ASF requires is that there is an intent  
> to contribute. Anything that can be reasonably read that way is fine.  
> Many PMCs happily accept patches sent to the dev list (although they may  
> ask them to be attached to issues more so they don't get forgotten than  
> anything else). Pull requests are certainly acceptable.  
> 
> My personal recommendation is don't put more formal process in place  
> than you actually need. Social controls are a lot more flexible than  
> technical ones and generally have a much lower overhead.  
> 
> Mark  
> 
>>  
>> [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed  
> 
> 

Re: Github pull requests

[Jake Farrell]

We still include both processes in our how to contribute, but github is the
new preferred method (thanks for the reminder to update that doc)

https://github.com/apache/thrift/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md

and an example of the cross commenting: THRIFT-3876 with matching PR 1045

https://github.com/apache/thrift/pull/1045
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-3876



On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Jake Luciani  wrote:

> Jake could you show an example issue and how the pipeline works?
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Jake Farrell 
> wrote:
>
> > We just switched Apache Thrift over to using Github for all our inbound
> > contributions, have not made Github canonical yet. We wanted to have one
> > unified way to accept patches and also make it easier for automated CI to
> > validate the patch prior to review. Much easier now that we have a set
> > pipeline
> >
> > -Jake
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Ben Coverston <
> > ben.covers...@datastax.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I think it would certainly make contributing to Cassandra more
> > > straightforward.
> > >
> > > I'm not a committer, so I don't regularly create patches, and every
> time
> > I
> > > do I have to search/verify that I'm doing it right.
> > >
> > > But pull requests? I make pull requests every day, and GitHub makes
> that
> > > process work the same everywhere.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Jonathan Ellis 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of
> > > creating
> > > > a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate
> > > > intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of
> > changes
> > > > in Jira.
> > > >
> > > > But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a
> > github
> > > > pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making
> > github
> > > > the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way
> > > > around.  (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not
> > sure.)
> > > >
> > > > Should we revisit our policy here?
> > > >
> > > > [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jonathan Ellis
> > > > Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
> > > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> > > > @spyced
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ben Coverston
> > > DataStax -- The Apache Cassandra Company
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://twitter.com/tjake
>

Re: Github pull requests

[Aleksey Yeschenko]

Also, Github’s ability to modify files ‘in-place’ and create pull requests from 
those changes is
extremely important for our Docs progress. Now that we have proper in-tree 
documentation,
this would lower the barrier for Docs writers tremendously.

-- 
AY

On 26 August 2016 at 17:15:54, Jake Luciani (jak...@gmail.com) wrote:

Jake could you show an example issue and how the pipeline works?  

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Jake Farrell  wrote:  

> We just switched Apache Thrift over to using Github for all our inbound  
> contributions, have not made Github canonical yet. We wanted to have one  
> unified way to accept patches and also make it easier for automated CI to  
> validate the patch prior to review. Much easier now that we have a set  
> pipeline  
>  
> -Jake  
>  
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Ben Coverston <  
> ben.covers...@datastax.com>  
> wrote:  
>  
> > I think it would certainly make contributing to Cassandra more  
> > straightforward.  
> >  
> > I'm not a committer, so I don't regularly create patches, and every time  
> I  
> > do I have to search/verify that I'm doing it right.  
> >  
> > But pull requests? I make pull requests every day, and GitHub makes that  
> > process work the same everywhere.  
> >  
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Jonathan Ellis   
> wrote:  
> >  
> > > Hi all,  
> > >  
> > > Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of  
> > creating  
> > > a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate  
> > > intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of  
> changes  
> > > in Jira.  
> > >  
> > > But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a  
> github  
> > > pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making  
> github  
> > > the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way  
> > > around. (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not  
> sure.)  
> > >  
> > > Should we revisit our policy here?  
> > >  
> > > [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed  
> > >  
> > > --  
> > > Jonathan Ellis  
> > > Project Chair, Apache Cassandra  
> > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com  
> > > @spyced  
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > --  
> > Ben Coverston  
> > DataStax -- The Apache Cassandra Company  
> >  
>  



--  
http://twitter.com/tjake  

Re: Github pull requests

[Jake Luciani]

Jake could you show an example issue and how the pipeline works?

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Jake Farrell  wrote:

> We just switched Apache Thrift over to using Github for all our inbound
> contributions, have not made Github canonical yet. We wanted to have one
> unified way to accept patches and also make it easier for automated CI to
> validate the patch prior to review. Much easier now that we have a set
> pipeline
>
> -Jake
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Ben Coverston <
> ben.covers...@datastax.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think it would certainly make contributing to Cassandra more
> > straightforward.
> >
> > I'm not a committer, so I don't regularly create patches, and every time
> I
> > do I have to search/verify that I'm doing it right.
> >
> > But pull requests? I make pull requests every day, and GitHub makes that
> > process work the same everywhere.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Jonathan Ellis 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of
> > creating
> > > a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate
> > > intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of
> changes
> > > in Jira.
> > >
> > > But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a
> github
> > > pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making
> github
> > > the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way
> > > around.  (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not
> sure.)
> > >
> > > Should we revisit our policy here?
> > >
> > > [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jonathan Ellis
> > > Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
> > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> > > @spyced
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ben Coverston
> > DataStax -- The Apache Cassandra Company
> >
>



-- 
http://twitter.com/tjake

Re: Github pull requests

[Jeff Beck]

I would love to be able to send PRs, there have a been a few minor
improvements I wanted to submit that are sitting in local branches for me
for when I have time to really learn how to submit a patch where PRs are
much more approachable now.

Jeff

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:11 AM Aleksey Yeschenko 
wrote:

> Mark, I, for one, will be happy with the level of GitHub integration that
> Spark has, formal or otherwise.
>
> As it stands right now, none of the committers/PMC members have any
> control over Cassandra Github mirror.
>
> Which, among other things, means that we cannot even close the erroneously
> opened PRs ourselves,
> they just accumulate unless the PR authors is kind enough to close them.
> That’s really frustrating.
>
> --
> AY
>
> On 26 August 2016 at 17:07:29, Mark Thomas (ma...@apache.org) wrote:
>
> On 26/08/2016 16:33, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of
> creating
> > a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate
> > intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of changes
> > in Jira.
> >
> > But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a github
> > pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making github
> > the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way
> > around. (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not sure.)
> >
> > Should we revisit our policy here?
>
> At the moment, the ASF Git repo is always the master, with GitHub as a
> mirror. That allows push requests to be made via GitHub.
>
> Infra is exploring options for giving PMCs greater control over GitHub
> config (including allowing GitHub to be the master with a golden copy
> held at the ASF) but that is a work in progress.
>
> As far as intent to contribute goes, there does appear to be a trend
> that the newer a project is to the ASF, the more formal the project
> makes process around recording intent to contribute. (The same can be
> said for other processes as well like Jira config.)
>
> It is worth noting that all the ASF requires is that there is an intent
> to contribute. Anything that can be reasonably read that way is fine.
> Many PMCs happily accept patches sent to the dev list (although they may
> ask them to be attached to issues more so they don't get forgotten than
> anything else). Pull requests are certainly acceptable.
>
> My personal recommendation is don't put more formal process in place
> than you actually need. Social controls are a lot more flexible than
> technical ones and generally have a much lower overhead.
>
> Mark
>
> >
> > [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
>
>

Re: Github pull requests

[Aleksey Yeschenko]

Mark, I, for one, will be happy with the level of GitHub integration that Spark 
has, formal or otherwise.

As it stands right now, none of the committers/PMC members have any control 
over Cassandra Github mirror.

Which, among other things, means that we cannot even close the erroneously 
opened PRs ourselves,
they just accumulate unless the PR authors is kind enough to close them. That’s 
really frustrating.

-- 
AY

On 26 August 2016 at 17:07:29, Mark Thomas (ma...@apache.org) wrote:

On 26/08/2016 16:33, Jonathan Ellis wrote:  
> Hi all,  
>  
> Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of creating  
> a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate  
> intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of changes  
> in Jira.  
>  
> But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a github  
> pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making github  
> the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way  
> around. (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not sure.)  
>  
> Should we revisit our policy here?  

At the moment, the ASF Git repo is always the master, with GitHub as a  
mirror. That allows push requests to be made via GitHub.  

Infra is exploring options for giving PMCs greater control over GitHub  
config (including allowing GitHub to be the master with a golden copy  
held at the ASF) but that is a work in progress.  

As far as intent to contribute goes, there does appear to be a trend  
that the newer a project is to the ASF, the more formal the project  
makes process around recording intent to contribute. (The same can be  
said for other processes as well like Jira config.)  

It is worth noting that all the ASF requires is that there is an intent  
to contribute. Anything that can be reasonably read that way is fine.  
Many PMCs happily accept patches sent to the dev list (although they may  
ask them to be attached to issues more so they don't get forgotten than  
anything else). Pull requests are certainly acceptable.  

My personal recommendation is don't put more formal process in place  
than you actually need. Social controls are a lot more flexible than  
technical ones and generally have a much lower overhead.  

Mark  

>  
> [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed  

Re: Github pull requests

[Mark Thomas]

On 26/08/2016 16:33, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of creating
> a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate
> intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of changes
> in Jira.
> 
> But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a github
> pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making github
> the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way
> around.  (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not sure.)
> 
> Should we revisit our policy here?

At the moment, the ASF Git repo is always the master, with GitHub as a
mirror. That allows push requests to be made via GitHub.

Infra is exploring options for giving PMCs greater control over GitHub
config (including allowing GitHub to be the master with a golden copy
held at the ASF) but that is a work in progress.

As far as intent to contribute goes, there does appear to be a trend
that the newer a project is to the ASF, the more formal the project
makes process around recording intent to contribute. (The same can be
said for other processes as well like Jira config.)

It is worth noting that all the ASF requires is that there is an intent
to contribute. Anything that can be reasonably read that way is fine.
Many PMCs happily accept patches sent to the dev list (although they may
ask them to be attached to issues more so they don't get forgotten than
anything else). Pull requests are certainly acceptable.

My personal recommendation is don't put more formal process in place
than you actually need. Social controls are a lot more flexible than
technical ones and generally have a much lower overhead.

Mark

> 
> [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed

Re: Github pull requests

[Russell Spitzer]

This is one of my favorite aspects of how contributions to Spark work. This
also makes it easier to have automated testing on new branches
automatically occurring.

-Russ

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 8:45 AM Ben Coverston 
wrote:

> I think it would certainly make contributing to Cassandra more
> straightforward.
>
> I'm not a committer, so I don't regularly create patches, and every time I
> do I have to search/verify that I'm doing it right.
>
> But pull requests? I make pull requests every day, and GitHub makes that
> process work the same everywhere.
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Jonathan Ellis  wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of
> creating
> > a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate
> > intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of changes
> > in Jira.
> >
> > But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a github
> > pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making github
> > the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way
> > around.  (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not sure.)
> >
> > Should we revisit our policy here?
> >
> > [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan Ellis
> > Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
> > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> > @spyced
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ben Coverston
> DataStax -- The Apache Cassandra Company
>

Re: Github pull requests

[Jake Farrell]

We just switched Apache Thrift over to using Github for all our inbound
contributions, have not made Github canonical yet. We wanted to have one
unified way to accept patches and also make it easier for automated CI to
validate the patch prior to review. Much easier now that we have a set
pipeline

-Jake

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Ben Coverston 
wrote:

> I think it would certainly make contributing to Cassandra more
> straightforward.
>
> I'm not a committer, so I don't regularly create patches, and every time I
> do I have to search/verify that I'm doing it right.
>
> But pull requests? I make pull requests every day, and GitHub makes that
> process work the same everywhere.
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Jonathan Ellis  wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of
> creating
> > a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate
> > intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of changes
> > in Jira.
> >
> > But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a github
> > pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making github
> > the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way
> > around.  (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not sure.)
> >
> > Should we revisit our policy here?
> >
> > [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan Ellis
> > Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
> > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> > @spyced
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ben Coverston
> DataStax -- The Apache Cassandra Company
>

Re: Github pull requests

[Ben Coverston]

I think it would certainly make contributing to Cassandra more
straightforward.

I'm not a committer, so I don't regularly create patches, and every time I
do I have to search/verify that I'm doing it right.

But pull requests? I make pull requests every day, and GitHub makes that
process work the same everywhere.

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Jonathan Ellis  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Historically we've insisted that people go through the process of creating
> a Jira issue and attaching a patch or linking a branch to demonstrate
> intent-to-contribute and to make sure we have a unified record of changes
> in Jira.
>
> But I understand that other Apache projects are now recognizing a github
> pull request as intent-to-contribute [1] and some are even making github
> the official repo, with an Apache mirror, rather than the other way
> around.  (Maybe this is required to accept pull requests, I am not sure.)
>
> Should we revisit our policy here?
>
> [1] e.g. https://github.com/apache/spark/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
>
> --
> Jonathan Ellis
> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra
> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> @spyced
>



-- 
Ben Coverston
DataStax -- The Apache Cassandra Company

Failings tests 2016-08-25 [cassandra-3.9]

[Joel Knighton]

The testall, novnode, and upgrade jobs all look good.

dtest: 1 failure
  paging_test.TestPagingDatasetChanges
  .test_cell_TTL_expiry_during_paging
This is a new flaky failure. It looks like the test
 didn't correctly wait for schema agreement. I'll
 make sure an issue is created for this tomorrow.