Re: [DISCUSS] Creating a 5.0 landing page

2023-08-03 Thread guo Maxwell
Can we have some pages for 5.0 in Chinese?If we can,I can do some help to doing some translation ! Ekaterina Dimitrova 于2023年8月4日 周五上午10:55写道: > I honestly didn’t realize events page was added already. Thank you, Josh! > > So yes, in that case I guess that is what I am asking - shall we add there

Re: [DISCUSS] Creating a 5.0 landing page

2023-08-03 Thread Ekaterina Dimitrova
I honestly didn’t realize events page was added already. Thank you, Josh! So yes, in that case I guess that is what I am asking - shall we add there town halle, etc? On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 22:37, Josh McKenzie wrote: > We actually already have an events page: >

Re: [DISCUSSION] Shall we remove ant javadoc task?

2023-08-03 Thread Josh McKenzie
> the problem is that the javadoc task is not given the attention > it deserves. The failonerror is currently 'false' and the task itself > is not a part of any build and/or release processes > I just wrote a tool that explores the distribution of keys across multiple > sstables, I needed some

Re: [DISCUSS] Creating a 5.0 landing page

2023-08-03 Thread Josh McKenzie
We actually already have an events page: https://cassandra.apache.org/_/events.html; not sure if you were saying we should add one Ekaterina or saying we should add this content there. +1 to the content there and having a landing page that points there + integrating meetups, town halls, etc.

Re: Tokenization and SAI query syntax

2023-08-03 Thread Jon Haddad
Assuming SAI is a superset of SASI, and we were to set up something so that SASI indexes auto convert to SAI, this gives even more weight to my point regarding how differing behavior for the same syntax can lead to issues. Imo the best case scenario results in the user not even noticing their

Re: Tokenization and SAI query syntax

2023-08-03 Thread Jon Haddad
Yes, I understand that. What I'm trying to point out is the potential confusion with having the same syntax behave differently for different index types. I'm not holding this view strongly, I'd just like folks to consider the impact to the end user, who in my experience is great with foot

Re: [DISCUSSION] Shall we remove ant javadoc task?

2023-08-03 Thread Ekaterina Dimitrova
Thank you Maxim. There is CASSANDRA-18717, I guess that patch should go there. Keeping the task or not, the fix of the docs should go in anyway IMHO. I will not be available the next few days, but I can help with reviews when I am back. On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 17:44, Maxim Muzafarov wrote: > Yes,

Re: [DISCUSSION] Shall we remove ant javadoc task?

2023-08-03 Thread Maxim Muzafarov
Yes, I agree. The javadoc task should be part of our CI if we decide to keep it, to keep it buildable at all times. BTW, I have managed to fix all the javadoc errors. I have tested the task for both jdk11 and jdk17. Changes are here:

Re: [DISCUSS] Creating a 5.0 landing page

2023-08-03 Thread Ekaterina Dimitrova
Hi Hugh, Thank you for reaching out. I think this is a great idea. Also, great timing, considering the community is discussing a potential 5.0 alpha release soon. It seems to me you actually suggest more than one page? 1) 5.0 and new features - could this be an update of the What’s new page? -

Re: [DISCUSSION] Shall we remove ant javadoc task?

2023-08-03 Thread Ekaterina Dimitrova
Thank you Maxim, “ >From my point of view, the problem is that the javadoc task is not given the attention it deserves. The failonerror is currently 'false' and the task itself is not a part of any build and/or release processes, correct me if I'm wrong. So, 1. Fix warnings/errors; 2. Make the

Re: [DISCUSSION] Shall we remove ant javadoc task?

2023-08-03 Thread Maxim Muzafarov
Personally, I find javadocs quite useful, especially when htmls are indexed by search engines, which in turn increases the chances of finding the right answer faster (I have seen a lot of useful javadocs in the source code). I have done a quick build of the javadocs: [javadoc] Building index

Re: [DISCUSSION] Shall we remove ant javadoc task?

2023-08-03 Thread Jeremiah Jordan
I don’t think anyone wants to remove the javadocs. This thread is about removing the broken ant task which generates html files from them. +1 from me on removing the ant task. If someone feels the task is useful they can always implement one that does not crash and add it back. -Jeremiah On

Re: [DISCUSSION] Shall we remove ant javadoc task?

2023-08-03 Thread Claude Warren, Jr via dev
I think that we can get more developers interested if there are available javadocs. While many of the core classes are not going to be touched by someone just starting, being able to understand what the external touch points are and how they interact with other bits of the system can be

Re: [DISCUSSION] Adding BountyCastle as a test dependency

2023-08-03 Thread Ekaterina Dimitrova
As it seems there are no objections, we will continue with the addition of this dependency, thank you On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 at 11:41, Ekaterina Dimitrova wrote: > Hi team, > Probably most of you noticed that SSLFactoryTest unit tests fail now with > JDK 17. Java 15 removed sun.security.x509