FYI—regardless of the outcome, you can count on me to port CEP-37 in whatever form the community agrees on. As mentioned earlier, I’m already maintaining a private 4.1.6 fork ( https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/3367). Thank you!
Jaydeep On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 7:43 AM Micah Green <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm really interested in this thread, but don't see an update on where we > landed in terms of backporting and also the amount of work involved. I'm > all for backporting to 5.x minimally! I'm planning our 2026 work and where > this discussion goes will really help me optimally plan, which is why I'm > asking. > Thanks! > > On Sun, Dec 7, 2025 at 4:44 PM Ekaterina Dimitrova <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Seems like the 4.1 branch would still require some work to cover >> everything raised on this thread? Have anyone evaluated how much work that >> can be? >> >> I agree porting to 4.1, but not 4.0 is kind of weird. Then probably we >> better have it only in 5.0? >> >> Do people think it makes sense to create some kind of user survey around >> this work, too? Posted in @user >> >> On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 at 9:00, Josh McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Otherwise it feels weird backporting to 4.1 but not 4.0, and backporting >>> to both would increase the risk and maintenance burden. >>> >>> It would but by how much? >>> >>> 2 things jump out to me re: risk and maintenance: >>> >>> Risk: We kind of need to tackle the "version straddle w/schema table >>> diffs is currently Bad and makes rollbacks manual and brittle" broadly; >>> this feature is just one more example of that though it's a little >>> exacerbated by discussing doing something like this in a patch release. The >>> *ergonomics* of the "one-way-door without a human manually deleting >>> columns" part holds true cross-MAJOR too. "Progress" here seems like it's >>> either we handle this on a case-by-case basis w/flags to remove those >>> schema entries on rollback (kinda ew), or more durably with an elegant >>> solution in the long term, i.e. capabilities framework, though that doesn't >>> answer the "we explode when schemas don't match" bit. >>> >>> Maintenance: maintaining this across 4 branches is clearly more toil >>> than across 2. >>> >>> I'm personally kind of keen for us to tackle that Risk bit; I'd like all >>> of us to be able to more freely consider making changes to schema tables >>> w/out the complexity burden we have right now and the operator toil and >>> risk that comes along with it. >>> >>> The maintenance toil bit - I have less opinions on. Kind of depends on >>> how many people are on 4.0/4.1 right now that we'd expect to be on 4.1 for >>> another year until 7.0 hits and whether we think they'd benefit from the >>> feature (and contribute to bettering it) during that year I guess. >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2025, at 5:57 PM, Paulo Motta wrote: >>> >>> Otherwise it feels weird backporting to 4.1 but not 4.0, and backporting >>> to both would increase the risk and maintenance burden. >>> >>> >>>
