Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Thanks everyone. With 1. 24 +1 2. 18 +1 3. 18 +1 and no -1, the votes pass. (To those committers who indicated “nb”, your votes were all binding for vote (1)) From: J. D. Jordan Date: Sunday, 17 October 2021 at 16:05 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

1. +1(nb) 2. +1(nb) 3. +1(nb) > On Oct 17, 2021, at 5:19 AM, Gary Dusbabek wrote: > > +1 for all three. > >> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:31 AM bened...@apache.org >> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, >> as discussion has

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

+1 for all three. On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:31 AM bened...@apache.org wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, > as discussion has been circular for some time. > > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? > 2. Do you support the transaction

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

1. +1(nb) 2. +1(nb) 3. +1(nb) On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 at 7:55, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 23:07, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? > >> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for > >> Cassandra? > >> 3. Do you support an

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 23:07, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? >> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for >> Cassandra? >> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in >> Cassandra, leaving scope for future develo

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

I am satisfied with the addition of modularity as a requirement for this CEP. I change my vote to +1. On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:57 AM Jonathan Ellis wrote: > My votes: > > 1. -1 for a minor and a major reason. The minor reason is that I believe > we reached consensus in the discussion that al

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

I agree with Jeff that the ideal would be to reach a point where the -1 are withdrawn Le ven. 15 oct. 2021 à 16:13, Jeff Jirsa a écrit : > I support adopting this CEP, and the transaction semantics, and the > incremental approach to developing transactions, so I'm +1 on all three > > I also thin

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

I support adopting this CEP, and the transaction semantics, and the incremental approach to developing transactions, so I'm +1 on all three I also think that it is preferrable that we get to a point where the -1 be withdrawn, because I think it's a bad precedent to force the PMC to try to navigate

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

+1 to all (nb) I think this CEP is valuable because it improves on the existing shortcomings in performance and ability to execute queries that can be expressed in CQL statements and provides a foundation for future work. Adding interactive transactions is not in the original scope of the CEP, nor

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

1. +1 2. +1 3. +1 On 10/14/21 11:31 AM, bened...@apache.org wrote: Hi everyone, I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as discussion has been circular for some time. 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

1. +1 2. +1 3. +1 Em sex., 15 de out. de 2021 às 10:01, Brandon Williams escreveu: > 1. +1 > 2. +1 > 3. +1 > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:38 AM bened...@apache.org > wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three > sub-decisions, as discussion has

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

1. +1 2. +1 3. +1 On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:38 AM bened...@apache.org wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as > discussion has been circular for some time. > > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? > 2. Do you support the transacti

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

> > The major reason is that there is not a clear path from the simple CAS > operations supported by Accord to full SQL support > We have not discussed full SQL support and I know of no existing consensus on the topic of the evolution of our developer APIs. It may be worth opening up a ML DISCUSS t

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

1. +1 2. +1 3. +1 Benjamin Le ven. 15 oct. 2021 à 09:03, Sam Tunnicliffe a écrit : > 1. +1 > 2. +1 > 3. +1 > > Thanks, > Sam > > > On 14 Oct 2021, at 17:31, bened...@apache.org wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three > sub-decisions, as dis

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

1. +1 2. +1 3. +1 Thanks, Sam > On 14 Oct 2021, at 17:31, bened...@apache.org wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as > discussion has been circular for some time. > > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? > 2. Do you support the

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

1. +1 2. +1 3. +1 On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 04:31:29PM +, bened...@apache.org wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as > discussion has been circular for some time. > > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? > 2. Do you support the t

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

1. +1 nb 2. +1 nb 3. +1 nb I am excited to see a real proposal backed by a number of competent engineers that will meaningfully improve our ability to deliver important and complex features for Cassandra. To be frank, I'm somewhat confused as to the dissent on the CEP strategy itself (tactical im

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

On 10/14/21 2:07 PM, Mick Semb Wever wrote: > 1. -1 > > There's discussions still ongoing around this CEP. I support the CEP but > believe it is important that the community takes the patience to let > everyone say their piece and feel that they have been heard. I do not see > that waiting a week

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

.html/re6734d8aadcc17f6f14e1e07b9d3483a3e7628b70d094980e3056c3b%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E From: Mick Semb Wever Date: Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 22:08 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? > 2. Do you support t

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:32 AM bened...@apache.org wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, > as discussion has been circular for some time. > > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? > 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

1. +1 nb 2. +1 nb 3. +1 nb Very excited about the possibilities this CEP will open up. Thanks for putting this together, Benedict. On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 2:08 PM Mick Semb Wever wrote: > > > > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? > > 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

> > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? > 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for > Cassandra? > 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in > Cassandra, leaving scope for future development? > 1. -1 There's discussions still ongoing arou

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

On 10/14/21 9:31 AM, bened...@apache.org wrote: > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? > 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for Cassandra? > 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in > Cassandra, leaving scope for future development? +1 o

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

1. +1 nb 2. +1 nb 3. +1 nb I am personally excited for the foundation this new work lays. Multi-partition transactions will enable many new features and I don’t think we should hold up it’s development for missing conceptual SQL support when the community hasn’t decided on going in the SQL directi

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

+1 to all On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:57 AM C. Scott Andreas wrote: > 1. +1nb > 2. +1nb > 3. +1nb > > It’s been encouraging to follow discussion advancing potential > enhancements to this proposal on the other threads. > > I disagree that it is a good outcome for the project and the Apache > Cass

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

1. +1nb 2. +1nb 3. +1nb It’s been encouraging to follow discussion advancing potential enhancements to this proposal on the other threads. I disagree that it is a good outcome for the project and the Apache Cassandra user community to veto significant progress in this area on grounds that the

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

+1 on all points > On 14 Oct 2021, at 17:31, bened...@apache.org wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as > discussion has been circular for some time. > > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? > 2. Do you support the transaction s

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

can interpret the outcome of this vote once it concludes and refine the community process to ensure this situation does not arise in future. 1. +1 2. +1 3. +1 From: Jonathan Ellis Date: Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 17:57 To: dev Subject: Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions My votes: 1.

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

My votes: 1. -1 for a minor and a major reason. The minor reason is that I believe we reached consensus in the discussion that allowing the equivalent of LOCAL_SERIAL should be part of the CEP, but the CEP has not been updated to reflect this. The major reason is that there is not a clear path f

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

1. +1 2. +1 3. +1 On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 6:31 PM bened...@apache.org wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, > as discussion has been circular for some time. > > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? > 2. Do you support the transaction

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Point of order: our project governance states , "Once the proposal is finalized and any major committer dissent reconciled, call a [VOTE] on the ML to have the proposal adopted. The criteria for acceptance is cons

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

1. +1 2. +1 nb 3. +1 nb nb on 2. and 3. as I am not pmc (if I got this voting logic right) On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 18:36, Blake Eggleston wrote: > > 1. +1 > 2. +1 > 3. +1 > > > On Oct 14, 2021, at 9:31 AM, bened...@apache.org wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I would like to start a vote on thi

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

1. +1 2. +1 3. +1 > On Oct 14, 2021, at 9:31 AM, bened...@apache.org wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as > discussion has been circular for some time. > > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? > 2. Do you support the transacti

[VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

Hi everyone, I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as discussion has been circular for some time. 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for Cassandra? 3. Do you support an incremental approach to d