Re: [DISCUSS] API modifications and when to raise a thread on the dev ML

[Benedict]

I think it’s fine to separate the systems from the policy? We are agreeing a policy for systems we want to make guarantees about to our users (regarding maintenance and compatibility) For me, this is (at minimum) CQL and virtual tables. But I don’t think the policy differs based on the contents of the list, and given how long this topic stalled for. Given the primary point of contention seems to be the *policy* and not the list, I think it’s time to express our opinions numerically so we can move the conversation forwards. This isn’t binding, it just reifies the community sentiment. On 2 Feb 2023, at 13:02, Ekaterina Dimitrova <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> wrote:  “ So we can close out this discussion, let’s assume we’re only discussing any interfaces we want to make promises for. We can have a separate discussion about which those are if there is any disagreement.” May I suggest we first clear this topic and then move to voting? I would say I see confusion, not that much of a disagreement. Should we raise a discussion for every feature flag for example? In another thread virtual tables were brought in. I saw also other examples where people expressed uncertainty. I personally feel I’ll be able to take a more informed decision and vote if I first see this clarified.  I will be happy to put down a document and bring it for discussion if people agree with that On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 at 7:33, Aleksey Yeshchenko <alek...@apple.com> wrote: Bringing light to new proposed APIs no less important - if not more, for reasons already mentioned in this thread. For it’s not easy to change them later. Voting B. On 2 Feb 2023, at 10:15, Andrés de la Peña <adelap...@apache.org> wrote: If it's a breaking change, like removing a method or property, I think we would need a DISCUSS API thread prior to making changes. However, if the change is an addition, like adding a new yaml property or a JMX method, I think JIRA suffices.