+1 Dinesh
> On Oct 9, 2019, at 12:41 PM, Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> each one of them is extremely low risk, which means that any validation >> effort that has already happened won't have to be re-done > > +1 > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 1:46 PM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > >> Seems reasonable, especially since we're in alpha mode. >> >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:28 AM Aleksey Yeshchenko >> <alek...@apple.com.invalid> wrote: >> >>> +1; in particular since the protocol itself is still in beta >>> >>>> On 9 Oct 2019, at 17:26, Oleksandr Petrov <oleksandr.pet...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> During NGCC/ACNA19 we've had quite a few conversations around the 4.0 >>>> release. Many (minor) features and changes suggested during that time >> are >>>> possible to implement in 4.next without any problem. However, some >>> changes >>>> that seem to be very important for the community, which got mentioned >> in >>>> several conversations, are not possible to implement without protocol >>>> changes. By *protocol* changes here I mean both native and client >>> protocol. >>>> >>>> Here's a shortlist of the issues in question: >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15349 Add “Going away” >>>> message to the client protocol >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15350 Add CAS >>> “uncertainty” >>>> and “contention" messages that are currently propagated as a >>>> WriteTimeoutException. >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15351 Allow >> configuring >>>> timeouts on the per-request basis >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15352 Replica failure >>>> propagation to coordinator and client >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-15299 Improve >>> checksumming >>>> and compression in protocol v5-beta >>>> >>>> And, less importantly - CASSANDRA-14683 (paging state issue). >>>> >>>> My suggestion would be to lift a freeze for all (or at least some) of >>> these >>>> issues, since they seem to be quite important for operators and each >> one >>> of >>>> them is extremely low risk, which means that any validation effort that >>> has >>>> already happened won't have to be re-done. All of the issues are fairly >>>> easy to implement, which means they won't delay the release. >>>> >>>> To my best knowledge, there's no client that fully supports 4.0, I >> think >>>> doing this now actually makes sense, meaning that driver implementers >>> won't >>>> really have to redo anything. >>>> >>>> Your thoughts on this are welcome, >>>> -- Alex >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
