This is awesome! Big thank you and congrats to everyone who worked to make this happen!
On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:07 PM Paulo Motta <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd like to announce that the backport of AutoRepair has been committed to > cassandra-5.0[1]. Thanks Andy and Jaydeep for the thorough review! > > This feature is gated by a JVM property "cassandra.autorepair.enable", see > NEWS.txt for more information on enabling this feature[2]. System schema > changes required to support this feature are only performed when the flag > is enabled. As a consequence of that, it is not possible to disable the > flag once enabled. This is a trade-off required to prevent schema changes > during a minor upgrade for users who do not intend to enable the feature. > > [1] - > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/commit/9500eb129bd61b2eaec78df3b9a7a5ebfca91c92 > [2] - https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/cassandra-5.0/NEWS.txt#L79 > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2026 at 4:03 PM Paulo Motta <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks Jaydeep and Andy for the review! I have addressed the review >> comments and this should be ready for another look. >> >> I wanted to give a heads up to the community that we should be merging >> this 5.0 backport soon in case there are any outstanding concerns. >> >> On Sun, Feb 22, 2026 at 12:59 AM Tolbert, Andy <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I finally got around to playing around with Paulo's 5.0 backport branch >>> as well and added some review feedback. I agree with Jaydeep that it looks >>> great, nice work Paulo! >>> >>> The write up on the PR in NEWS.txt ( >>> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/4558/changes#diff-95c20d744db732cdbca24c3e0406c10005ecf7fe8b5719c2fdf2b8af3fcedc79) >>> does a great job describing how to opt into the feature and how it >>> mitigates any risk. I'm hopeful that the approach taken here makes a >>> giving a +1 to a possible backport vote an easier choice for folks! >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Andy >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2026 at 8:03 PM Jaydeep Chovatia < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I have looked at the PR. Overall, it looks great. Added a few comments. >>>> >>>> Jaydeep >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 8:20 PM Jaydeep Chovatia < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I will take a look at it. Happy to see AutoRepair in 5.0. >>>>> Thank you for the patch, Paulo! >>>>> >>>>> Jaydeep >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 3:27 PM Tolbert, Andy <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'd be happy to take a look at reviewing this as well as I would be >>>>>> excited to see Auto Repair in 5.0. Thank you for the patch, Paulo! >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 5:13 PM Paulo Motta <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I have submitted a patch porting AutoRepair to 5.0 on >>>>>>> CASSANDRA-21138[1] and tagged Jaydeep Chovatia for review. I would >>>>>>> greatly >>>>>>> appreciate other sets of eyes, especially those involved with the >>>>>>> original >>>>>>> CEP-37 effort. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The feature is disabled by default and no schema changes are made >>>>>>> unless a JVM flag is enabled to reduce upgrade risk to users who do not >>>>>>> intend to enable this feature. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns about >>>>>>> having this merged in 5.0. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-21138 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 8:34 PM Jaydeep Chovatia < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure, I am happy to review it whenever it's ready, Paulo. Please >>>>>>>> let me know. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jaydeep >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 8:32 AM Paulo Motta <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I agree with Scott. I don't think we should backport this to 4.1 >>>>>>>>> due to the compatibility issues raised plus this branch has already >>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>> stabilized for a while. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think backporting auto-repair to 5.0 would be more appropriate >>>>>>>>> as it would encourage users to adopt this version and get closer to >>>>>>>>> trunk, >>>>>>>>> rather than encouraging users to stick to an older version. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I decided to take a stab at backporting auto-repair + >>>>>>>>> additional fixes to 5.0 on this preliminary PR: >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/4558 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's not ready for review yet since I need to gate the schema >>>>>>>>> changes under a feature flag, but I think I can get it ready by the >>>>>>>>> end of >>>>>>>>> week. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If there's no opposition against shipping this in 5.0 maybe I can >>>>>>>>> create a JIRA and have Jaydeep review it ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 11:15 AM C. Scott Andreas < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For the purpose of a quick straw poll, I’m not opposed to >>>>>>>>>> backporting to 5.x, but I don’t support backporting to 4.x-series >>>>>>>>>> releases >>>>>>>>>> for the compatibility and upgrade complexity reasons previously >>>>>>>>>> discussed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Scott >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > On Jan 12, 2026, at 1:27 AM, Štefan Miklošovič < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > Hi everybody, >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > I want to refresh this thread after the holidays. Is there an >>>>>>>>>> > agreement we reached? Is everybody on board with backporting to >>>>>>>>>> 4.1+? >>>>>>>>>> > How are we going to do this concretely? I guess Jaydeep would be >>>>>>>>>> > involved in the backporting as he just said. I honestly do not >>>>>>>>>> think >>>>>>>>>> > there is anybody else better suited to make it happen and your >>>>>>>>>> > willingness to do that is really appreciated. >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > Regards >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> >> On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 5:38 AM Jaydeep Chovatia >>>>>>>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>
