> scope creep. I think it is unfair to label this scope creep; it would have to be newly considered for 4.0 for it to fall under that umbrella.
I don't personally mind if it lands, but this was discussed at length on multiple occasions over the past year, and only stalled because of a combination of lack of etiquette, and a lack of leadership from e.g. PMC in resolving various political questions over the course of events. I also struggle to see how this would invalidate testing in any significant way? It doesn't modify any existing behaviour. ________________________________ From: Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> Sent: 01 April 2020 19:24 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> Subject: Re: server side describe This looks like a feature that'd potentially invalidate some testing that's been done and we've been feature frozen for over a year and a half. Also: scope creep. My PoV is we hold off. If we get into a cadence of more frequent releases we'll have it soon enough. On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:03 PM <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > Normally I ping the person on the ticket or in Slack to ask him/her for > status update and whether I can help. Then probably he/she gives me a > direction. > If I can’t find the person anymore, I just use my best judgement and > coordinate with people who might know better than me. > For now this strategy worked for me personally. > Hope this helps > Ekaterina > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 1 Apr 2020, at 14:27, 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
