;>>>> +1 all of this
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 09/04/2020, 10:23, "Oleksandr Petrov" <
>>> oleksandr.pet...@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>
; > > >>>>a DESCRIBE approach. Robert made a patch for that approach
> > > >> (according
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>his comment it was discussed with Chris beforehand).
> > > >>>>
> > > >&g
t means). From the
> > >>>> (little)
> > >>>>time I've spent looking at the patch, I remember that there
> wasn't
> > >>> much
> > >>>>common code between the two (sorry if I'm remembering it wrong).
>
er that there wasn't
> >>> much
> >>>>common code between the two (sorry if I'm remembering it wrong).
> >>>>
> >>>>If the discussion is about whether or not to include _some_ version
> >>> of
> >>>>
; was
>>>>there for a while and was not committed for non-technical reasons.
>> If
>>>> we're
>>>>trying to decide _which_ patch to commit, I'd personally focus on
>> the
>>>>original patch (to foster recogni
nd was not committed for non-technical reasons.
> If
> > > we're
> > > trying to decide _which_ patch to commit, I'd personally focus on
> the
> > > original patch (to foster recognition), get it reviewed, and pick
> any
> > > changes that make i
> >
> > > Where do we draw the line?
> >
> > I would discuss changes on the case-by-case basis. Some of the things
> > we
> > have explicitly (as a community) agreed to commit are still in
> > progress,
> > including several client protocol
discuss changes on the case-by-case basis. Some of the things
> we
> have explicitly (as a community) agreed to commit are still in
> progress,
> including several client protocol changes. And, to my understanding, if
> those are committed, it'll be what community has agr
can talk over. If it's something as
trivial as server-side describe that doesn't risk stability but adds a lot
of value, it may make sense to include. But I woudln't attempt to come up
with a general rule for what we may or may not consider for now.
On Mon, Ap
f
those are committed, it'll be what community has agreed upon. All further
changes that weren't discussed yet - we can talk over. If it's something as
trivial as server-side describe that doesn't risk stability but adds a lot
of value, it may make sense to include. But I woudl
n any
> significant way? It doesn't modify any existing behaviour.
>
>
> From: Joshua McKenzie
> Sent: 01 April 2020 19:24
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re: server side describe
>
> This looks like a feature
le to see how this would invalidate testing in any significant
way? It doesn't modify any existing behaviour.
From: Joshua McKenzie
Sent: 01 April 2020 19:24
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: server side describe
Th
From: Joshua McKenzie
Sent: 01 April 2020 19:24
To: 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
018, 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
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think we should get serious about the so-called freeze.
> > >
> > >
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 11:37 AM Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>
> > I think we should get serious about the so-called freeze.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 1:27 PM Jon Haddad wrote:
> >
> > > Hey folks,
> > >
> > > I was looking through our
d get serious about the so-called freeze.
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 1:27 PM Jon Haddad 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,
It seems to me that we need to get better at making decisions for things
like that.
If we keep on arguing for small things, it will simply be time consuming
and painfull for everybody.
In this case, the situation seems simple.
Part of the group do not agree with the proposal. We just have to accept
One thing probably worth thinking about: we're a mostly irascible lot to
begin with and there's a global pandemic and Human Race Lockdown. I don't
know about the rest of you but I'm starting from a pretty not-chill place
these days; trying to be mindful of that.
So for this: if we require a protoc
Whether a feature is fully done and whether it validates or invalidate
testing is not the point here. The point is that it is a feature and
violates feature freeze. If someone brings in a feature which is almost
done and does not invalidate testing then will we merge all of them to 4.0?
Lot of feat
Chris's original patch used a virtual table which didn't even require a
protocol change. To me, the difference between having a CQL describe vs a
virtual table is unimportant, since it's only drivers that need to care
about it. I'm completely fine with the simpler implementation of a virtual
tabl
So summarizing the salient points here:
- client authors have worked around this mostly, but this would avoid some
duplication of effort for new features
- this issues was tagged last year as being pertinent to 4.0 in several
threads about what was in scope
- there is some development efforts requi
t; 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
>>>&
now better than me.
> > > > For now this strategy worked for me personally.
> > > > Hope this helps
> > > > Ekaterina
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > > On 1 Apr 20
this strategy worked for me personally.
> > > > Hope this helps
> > > > Ekaterina
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > > On 1 Apr 2020, at 14:27, Jon Haddad wrote:
> > > > >
> > >
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 wrote:
> > > >
>
> > Ekaterina
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 1 Apr 2020, at 14:27, Jon Haddad wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey folks,
> > >
> > > I was looking through our open JIRAs and realized we hadn't merged in
> > > server sid
h 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 wrote:
> >
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > I was looking through our open
strategy worked for me personally.
Hope this helps
Ekaterina
Sent from my iPhone
> On 1 Apr 2020, at 14:27, Jon Haddad wrote:
>
> Hey folks,
>
> I was looking through our open JIRAs and realized we hadn't merged in
> server side describe calls yet. The ticket die
gt; Thanks for bringing it up, Jon - huge +1 on merging (some form) of this.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 7:27 AM Jon Haddad wrote:
> >
> > > Hey folks,
> > >
> > > I was looking through our open JIRAs and realized we hadn't merged in
> > > s
1 on merging (some form) of this.
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 7:27 AM Jon Haddad 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
>>
lients
> to idiomatically rebuild the schema.
>
> Thanks for bringing it up, Jon - huge +1 on merging (some form) of this.
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 7:27 AM Jon Haddad wrote:
>
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > I was looking through our open JIRAs and realized we hadn'
I think we should get serious about the so-called freeze.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 1:27 PM Jon Haddad 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
> p
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.
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 shou
34 matches
Mail list logo
