On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 11:40 PM Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>
>> It introduces some overhead when bisecting to go from the snapshot's
> timestamp to the other repo's SHA (this is easily solvable by putting the
> SHA inside the jarfile).
>
Whatever system we choose, the link should be the SHA. It sho
> You would reference the snapshot dependency by the timestamped snapshot. This
> makes it a reproducible build.
How confident are we that the repository will not alter or delete them?
> linking in the source code into in-tree is a significant thing to do
Could you explain why? I thought your p
> Josh, bundling releases gets tricky in that you need to include the library
> sources, because the cassandra release is essentially being voted on (because
> it has been built) with non-released dependencies.
Arguably, one shouldn't vote on a release of Accord unless there's something
that's i
>
> Regarding the use of snapshots, this isn’t impossible Henrik - I floated
> this as an option. But besides the additional overhead during development,
> this does not maintain reproducible builds, as the snapshot can change.
>
You would reference the snapshot dependency by the timestamped snaps
I am certainly not proposing any certainty about outside interest, but I think as the only full implementation of a leaderless protocol in existence, as well as an open source pluggable distributed transaction protocol, the chance of some interest is not vanishingly small (once it is proven in Cass
Is there any reason we couldn't "bundle" a release vote to include both an
Accord release and ASF C* in one voting round as a combined release? My reading
of the release process w/the ASF doesn't speak to that (if anything it implies
this might be a valid approach):
https://www.apache.org/legal
Hi Derek
Somewhat of a newcomer myself, it seems the answers to your excellent
questions are:
* We don't all agree with the premise that Accord will attract substantial
outside interest. Even so, my personal opinion is that whether that happens
or not, it's not wrong to aspire toward or plan for
Actually, re-reading the thread, I think I missed the initial point
brought up and got lost in the discussion specific to submodules. What
is the technical reason for bringing Accord in-tree? While I think
submodules are the best way to include source in-tree, I'm not sure
this is actually the corr
I'd like to go back to Benedict's initial point: if we have a new
consensus protocol that other projects would potentially be interested
in, then by all means it should be its own project. Let's start with
that as a basis for discussion, because from my reading it seems like
people might be disagre
> but the pre-commit gateway here is higher than the previous tickets being
> worked on
Which tickets, and why?
> On 17 Jan 2023, at 07:43, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Could you file a bug report with more detail about which classes you think
>> are lacking adequate documentation in
The answer to all your questions is “like any other library” - this is a
procedural hack to ease development. There are alternative isomorphic hacks,
like compiling source jars from Accord and including them in the C* tree, if it
helps your mental model.
> you stated that a goal was to avoid ma
11 matches
Mail list logo
