Proposing the test build of Cassandra 4.0-beta1 for release.
sha1: 972da6fcffa87b3a1684362a2bab97db853372d8
Git:
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/4.0-beta1-tentative
Maven Artifacts:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassandra-121
Thanks for the clarification Melissa. It’s interesting to see how open source
marketing and timing differs from “traditional”.
Looks like I was mistaken about coordination implications of delay. Sorry for
instigating needless conflict.
> On Jul 17, 2020, at 5:11 PM, 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 -1s.
>
Vote closed/cancelled, am re-cutting it…
Hi all, Melissa of Constantia here (just back from PTO).
Our plan is to share the community-approved blog with reporters who have
expressed interest in Cassandra, which may result in coverage. We also
developed a 4.0 beta graphic that anyone is welcome to use.
FWIW our timeline revolves around yo
>
> some marketing blitz that wasn't even publicly discussed but I won't stand
> in the way.
> 2) I'm anyway very disappointed when individuals act on behalf of the
> project without involving it in the decision-making or coordination
This topic was opened on the public ML and volunteers asked for
> If we agree to include this in beta-2, I'm OK with proceeding, but I
think we'll need a separate super-majority vote on ignoring the agreed beta
rules, which might be harder than just re-rolling the release?
This position, on a release vote, by precedence sounds more like a -0. A
valid concern
So, I'll say few things in bullet point form just for my general sentiment
1) I recognise the value of these efforts, and do not want to undermine them
2) I'm anyway very disappointed when individuals act on behalf of the project
without involving it in the decision-making or coordination
3) We'r
-0
For the same reason as Benedict. I'd prefer we didn't deliberately violate
our own agreed on release rules just for the sake of some marketing blitz
that wasn't even publicly discussed but I won't stand in the way.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 9:27 AM Joshua McKenzie
wrote:
> >
> > I'm not awa
>
> I'm not aware of any of this, except the blog post proposal? What
> channels is this being coordinated on, and with whom?
Melissa Logan and Constantia are on this (she hit up the list a bit ago);
I'm not deep in the weeds - more of a contributor on the list that's agreed
to help out and colla
> The cost to us delaying the beta over this ticket is risking our currently
> lined up coordination with journalists and other channels
I'm not aware of any of this, except the blog post proposal? What channels is
this being coordinated on, and with whom?
If we agree to include this in beta-2
+1
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 5:47 PM Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> Proposing the test build of Cassandra 3.11.7 for release.
>
> sha1: 9fe62b3e40147fda2cc081744bd375b04574aef7
> Git:
>
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/3.11.7-tentative
> Maven Artifacts:
>
> htt
This -1 is due to removal of an unused, unadvertised, and likely never
working feature being removed in the config and raising an exception upon
use. Is that accurate?
>
>
I bid that we allow this into the beta and you agree to rescind your -1 as
we can reasonably conclude the likelihood of any use
-1
Sorry, I dropped the ball on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15375
It's ready to commit, if somebody can give it a quick +1, and would be
prohibited after first beta.
On 16/07/2020, 21:16, "Sumanth Pasupuleti"
wrote:
+1 nb
Ran following CircleCI tests
j8_uni
13 matches
Mail list logo
