> > Someone once said: In my opinion, sniping like this doesn't help us move the conversation forward. Please reach out to other contributors who's behavior you have concerns with separately.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:23 PM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > This isn't a hill to die on or something to binding -1 for me > personally. In a vacuum this merge is totally fine. The problem for me > comes in if a merge like this is one of 10, or 50, or 100 things that > are innocuous in isolation. IMO as long as we make sure this is the > only cut we do to ourselves we won't face death by a thousand cuts on > 4.0. > > In general I'm concerned about our rigor and discipline on restricting > scope to get 4.0 out the door, but that's in no way unique to us as a > project or 4.0 as a release; this has happened with every large > software release I've ever worked on and always requires significant > discomfort to lock down. It's unfortunate that the situation with this > ticket stumbled across that sore point for me (and likely many of us), > but I think we should keep that to the other thread about scope. > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:34 AM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Someone once said: > > > > "I heard the expression recently that “there are ten ways to do this, and > > eight of them will work.” I think that applies to most of the code we > > write. We don't need to spend a lot of time discussing which of the > eight > > is best; let’s trust the judgement of the original author and move > > forward. " > > > > Had we applied that principle to this JIRA the first time the patch was > > available in OCTOBER 2018, we wouldn't be having a conversation about > > whether or not it violates a freeze. > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 11:37 AM Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > I think we should get serious about the so-called freeze. > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 1:27 PM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hey folks, > > > > > > > > I was looking through our open JIRAs and realized we hadn't merged in > > > > server side describe calls yet. The ticket died off a ways ago, and > I > > > > pinged Chris about it yesterday. He's got a lot of his plate and > won't > > > be > > > > able to work on it anytime soon. I still think we should include > this in > > > > 4.0. > > > > > > > > From a technical standpoint, It doesn't say much on the ticket after > > > Robert > > > > tossed an alternative patch out there. I don't mind reviewing and > > > merging > > > > either of them, it sounded like both are pretty close to done and I > think > > > > from the perspective of updating drivers for 4.0 this will save > quite a > > > bit > > > > of time since driver maintainers won't have to add new CQL > generation for > > > > the various new options that have recently appeared. > > > > > > > > Questions: > > > > > > > > * Does anyone have an objection to getting this into 4.0? The patches > > > > aren't too huge, I think they're low risk, and also fairly high > reward. > > > > * I don't have an opinion (yet) on Robert's patch vs Chris's, with > regard > > > > to which is preferable. > > > > * Since soon after Robert put up his PR he hasn't been around, at > least > > > as > > > > far as I've seen. How have we dealt with abandoned patches before? > If > > > > we're going to add this in the patch will need some cleanup. Is it > > > > reasonable to continue someone else's work when they've disappeared? > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jonathan Ellis > > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > > > @spyced > > > >
