Yeah, I feel like it’s a bad example to use to highlight 4.0 scope creep (which is less of a thing than some fear).
The work there is already done, and it’s extremely unintrusive. There is no reason whatsoever to block 4.0 on it, but no reason not to commit - now, in a beta, in the first RC, or even later in a minor. > On 2 Apr 2020, at 17:40, Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > > Sorry if this is a repeat message; I messed up my mail client settings (I > don't see it today, but it might just be stuck in an unmonitored moderator > queue): > > I think it is unfair to label this scope creep; it would have to be newly > considered for 4.0 for it to fall under that umbrella, surely? > > I don't personally mind if it lands, but this was discussed at length on > multiple occasions over the past year, and only stalled because of a > combination of lack of etiquette, and a lack of leadership from e.g. PMC in > resolving various primarily political questions over the course of events. > > I also struggle to see how this would invalidate testing in any significant > way? It doesn't modify any existing behaviour. > > > On 02/04/2020, 09:08, "Benjamin Lerer" <benjamin.le...@datastax.com> wrote: > > +1 for shipping it after 4.0 > > > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 12:39 AM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > >> Most of the work to provide this feature is already done. We need to >> generate server side CQL for snapshots already. All we need to do is >> expose it via either a "DESCRIBE" CQL command, or I'm equally happy to see >> it land in a virtual table. >> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 2:45 PM sankalp kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 on holding off and focus on shipping 4.0 >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:25 PM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> My PoV is we hold off. If we get into a cadence of more frequent >> releases >>>> we'll have it soon enough. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:03 PM <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> Normally I ping the person on the ticket or in Slack to ask him/her >> for >>>>> status update and whether I can help. Then probably he/she gives me a >>>>> 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 >>>>> Ekaterina >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>> On 1 Apr 2020, at 14:27, Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> 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 >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> From a technical standpoint, It doesn't say much on the ticket >> after >>>>> Robert >>>>>> tossed an alternative patch out there. I don't mind reviewing and >>>>> merging >>>>>> either of them, it sounded like both are pretty close to done and I >>>> think >>>>>> from the perspective of updating drivers for 4.0 this will save >>> quite a >>>>> bit >>>>>> of time since driver maintainers won't have to add new CQL >> generation >>>> for >>>>>> the various new options that have recently appeared. >>>>>> >>>>>> Questions: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Does anyone have an objection to getting this into 4.0? The >> patches >>>>>> aren't too huge, I think they're low risk, and also fairly high >>> reward. >>>>>> * I don't have an opinion (yet) on Robert's patch vs Chris's, with >>>> regard >>>>>> to which is preferable. >>>>>> * Since soon after Robert put up his PR he hasn't been around, at >>> least >>>>> as >>>>>> far as I've seen. How have we dealt with abandoned patches before? >>> If >>>>>> we're going to add this in the patch will need some cleanup. Is it >>>>>> reasonable to continue someone else's work when they've >> disappeared? >>>>>> >>>>>> Jon >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
