Mailing-List: contact user-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@cassandra.apache.org
Received-SPF: error (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
Subject: Re: disappointed
From: Derek Andree <dandree@lacunasystems.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEDUwd2Y7EH4DTm2UWt3uO+-VGi8asp_f2A-tfxzpH6sKXQfxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 04:08:00 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <949273CB-8C56-4486-BA9F-FCADAF4F080E@lacunasystems.com>
References: <41C4F926-156E-4245-97A1-3D6CE35760C9@gmail.com>
 <00f801ce885e$b3864e70$1a92eb50$@struq.com> <51EFD9CD.5090101@filez.com>
 <6C7EE9E3-DAD6-4006-8FFD-D737138337FA@gmail.com>
 <51F01ED1.6000002@megazebra.com>
 <CAEDUwd2Y7EH4DTm2UWt3uO+-VGi8asp_f2A-tfxzpH6sKXQfxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: user@cassandra.apache.org

Yeah, Rob is smart.  don't run crap in production.  Run what others are =
stable at.  If you are running the latest greatest dumbest craziest in =
prod then you ask for fail, and you will get just that.

FAIL

On Jul 24, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Robert Coli <rcoli@eventbrite.com> wrote:

> A better solution would likely involve not running cutting edge code =
in production.. if you find yourself needing to upgrade production =
anything on the day of a release, you are probably ahead of the version =
it is reasonable to run in production.
>=20
> If you're already comfortable with this high level of risk in =
production, I don't really see small manual patches as significantly =
increasing your level of risk...
>=20
> =3DRob=20