Sorry to derail the discussion but just on a point of order, there is actually
precedent for requiring a minimum patch level before a major upgrade. For
instance, from NEWS.txt:
Upgrade to 3.0 is supported from Cassandra 2.1 versions greater or
equal to 2.1.9, or Cassandra 2.2 versions greater or equal to 2.2.2.
This approach has also been mentioned [1][2] as a means to introduce a property
or setting to disable schema changes and the like before a major upgrade,
though in this case it would be optional not required.
[1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-19556?focusedCommentId=17848544&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-17848544
[2]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-21%3A+Transactional+Cluster+Metadata#CEP21:TransactionalClusterMetadata-MigrationPlan
> On 31 Jul 2024, at 22:13, C. Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net> wrote:
>
> There are a few things unclear to me in this thread and the ticket, and
> details in the Jira are slim.
>
> Yifan / others supportive of backporting this feature, could you help me
> answer these questions?
>
> – What's this for? I'd appreciate a detailed explanation of what "Enhance
> CQLSSTableWriter to notify clients on sstable production" does and how it's
> meant to be used. Why is it needed for rolling upgrades? The phrasing of the
> ticket right now reads as nice-to-have rather than must-have. An earlier
> email described the value as "code quality and brings other benefits," but
> I'd expect the standard for feature backports to be higher.
>
> – What's not possible if this isn't backported? What experience suffers today
> for lack of it / what problem does it solve? And what is the
> alternative/fallback if others are not supportive of backport?
>
> – If this is deemed required for upgrade, that means users of previous
> releases would have to first upgrade to the latest release on their current
> train before upgrading to the latest major version. This is not a pattern
> that has been required in the past, and we should not introduce such a
> requirement. Do you intend this to be the required path for 4.1.x upgrades to
> 5.x+?
>
> My general thoughts:
>
> – The patch is small and the feature is small so I don't have much concern
> with a backport; zero-ish vote.
> – It definitely shouldn't block release of the current 4.1.x vote thread
> that's in progress.
> – We shouldn't introduce upgrade paths that require users to upgrade to
> at-minimum-patchlevel versions of current releases before upgrading to future
> majors; I'm -1 on that.
>
> Thanks,
>
> – Scott
>
>> On Jul 31, 2024, at 2:04 PM, Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm kind of neutral on this, maybe -0. It's a small enough patch, but it's
>> of limited value, given that Cassandra Analytics doesn't work with vnodes.
>> That's the overwhelming majority of deployments. So I'm not really sure
>> what we gain here.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 1:58 PM Yifan Cai <yc25c...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:yc25c...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> Hi PMC team,
>>>
>>> There are so far two +1 and one -1. Please vote if you want to. It is open
>>> for another 12 hours.
>>>
>>> 4.1 is to be released. I would like to include the patch, if possible,
>>> according to the vote result.
>>>
>>> I recognize that patches to stable releases can be risky. When talking
>>> about the trade off, we need to evaluate the benefit holistically,
>>> considering all the projects under the Cassandra umbrella.
>>> We surely do not want to backport the user-facing Cassandra features and
>>> potentially demotivating upgrade.
>>> IMO, the internal changes should be treated differently, as long as the
>>> public interface does not change. In this particular case, Cassandra
>>> Analytics provides the same bulk write feature regardless of backporting
>>> the patch or not. But having the patch backported improves the code quality
>>> and brings other benefits. Hope it answers Mick's message.
>>>
>>> Maybe it is time we start to think about categorizing the interfaces in
>>> Cassandra into 1) public API, 2) internal API, and 3) evolving API, etc. It
>>> is not a suitable topic for this thread and requires a separate discussion.
>>>
>>> - Yifan
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 11:47 AM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org
>>> <mailto:m...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>> reply below.
>>>>
>>>>> We're moving into a world where we will likely more frequently modify
>>>>> the mainline branch with new functionality to integrate with ecosystem
>>>>> changes (sidecar, analytics, drivers?). It's probably at least worth a
>>>>> conversation as to whether our current policy (improvements and new
>>>>> features main branch only) is optimal across everything equally or if
>>>>> there should be nuance for ecosystem integrations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This also incentivises intentionally not introducing support for that api
>>>> in older mainlines. We KISS, if the user wants that ecosystem benefit
>>>> they need to upgrade to at least mainline X.
>>>>
>>>> Once older mainlines have it then we have this problem. An alternative to
>>>> the risk of having to always update all the mainlines, is to let the
>>>> ecosystem branch to provide support for the different mainlines as/when
>>>> needed. Both are painful.
>
>
>
>
