On 2024/06/21 12:00:43 Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> Agreeing with Stefan, Brandon, and Yifan here…
>
Yeah, I agree as well. We want to either have an alternative to MAXWRITETIME
or preserve the existing functionality.
> We are ready to cut 5.0-rc1 and this thread (and any resulting work) is the
> on
Agreeing with Stefan, Brandon, and Yifan here…
We are ready to cut 5.0-rc1 and this thread (and any resulting work) is the
only current blocker.
The argument for leaving things as they are, is…
- MAXWRITETIME as-is is valuable. and is done.
- We can't mark it deprecated until 18085 lands (ref
Third time's a charm.
In order to support that, we would need to include the second commit (1) of
this PR.
I am stuck on (2). Something happened in 5.0 in the meanwhile that this is
not working anymore.
If anybody feels brave enough to fix that, be my guest, I am under the time
pressure with oth
I should rather say that tests act as if the application of collection
functions to non-collection types would work but that functionality is not
in the prod code yet.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 1:17 PM Štefan Miklošovič
wrote:
> I do not feel comfortable to rush this.
>
> For completeness, this is
I do not feel comfortable to rush this.
For completeness, this is the PR I managed to rebase
https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/3383
This is CI, bunch of tests are failing
https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/instaclustr/cassandra/4406/workflows/d46e98e5-e931-41fc-ae51-a7202f3945e3
Nothing else is blocking the release currently, so unless 18085 is
ready to commit right now, I don't think it's worth delaying the
release any further.
Kind Regards,
Brandon
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 5:32 AM Jon Haddad wrote:
>
> I’m on vacation, so I’ll keep this brief. While its not the end of
I’m on vacation, so I’ll keep this brief. While its not the end of the
world, I think shipping a feature that’s immediately deprecated reflects
poorly on the project and our ability to manage it.
I don’t know how much work need to be done to merge that patch, so its hard
to say if we should wait
>
> To remove MAXWRITETIME (CASSANDRA-18078) we must now (as Yifan notes)
> first add CASSANDRA-18085.
>
This statement is inaccurate.
Before 5.0-alpha1 there was no equivalent function for either MAXWRITETIME
or 18085.
As Mick and Yifan say, we would need to merge CASSANDRA-18085 to fill the
gap. I looked into that and it does not apply cleanly / has some merge
conflicts.
In CASSANDRA-18085, Andres started a thread (1) which gets complicated
pretty fast and honestly I have not read it all yet to give any meaning
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 09:43, Sam Tunnicliffe wrote:
> 100% Option 1. Once it's out in GA release we're stuck with it so any
> short term disruption to adopters of pre-release versions is a trivial
> price to pay.
Sam, Jeremiah, Jeff, Jon,
we need some clarity on this.
To remove MAXWRITETIM
100% Option 1. Once it's out in GA release we're stuck with it so any short
term disruption to adopters of pre-release versions is a trivial price to pay.
> On 20 Jun 2024, at 17:46, Štefan Miklošovič wrote:
>
> List,
>
> we need your opinions about CASSANDRA-18078.
>
> That ticket is about
On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 at 18:46, Štefan Miklošovič
wrote:
> List,
>
> we need your opinions about CASSANDRA-18078.
>
> That ticket is about the removal of MAXWRITETIME function which was added
> in CASSANDRA-17425 and firstly introduced in 5.0-alpha1.
>
> This function was identified to be redundant
I am voting against this for now.
There is an unaddressed gap between the functions. I do not believe there
is an equivalent replacement for the MAXWRITETIME function already, which
will disrupt its adopters.
MAXWRITETIME handles both single value columns and collections as input.
Meanwhile, COLL
Agreed. If we release it, we can’t remove it after. Option 2 is off the
table.
—
Jon Haddad
Rustyrazorblade Consulting
rustyrazorblade.com
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 7:13 PM Jeff Jirsa wrote:
> If we have a public-facing API that we’re contemplating releasing to the
> public, and we don’t think i
If we have a public-facing API that we’re contemplating releasing to the
public, and we don’t think it’s needed, we should remove it before it’s
launched and we’re stuck with it forever.
> On Jun 20, 2024, at 9:55 AM, Jeremiah Jordan wrote:
>
> +1 from me for 1, just remove it now.
> I thi
+1 from me for 1, just remove it now.
I think this case is different from CASSANDRA-19556/CASSANDRA-17425. The
new guardrail from 19556 which would deprecate the 17425 has not been
committed yet. In the case of MAXWRITETIME the replacement is already in
the code, we just didn’t remove MAXWRITETI
List,
we need your opinions about CASSANDRA-18078.
That ticket is about the removal of MAXWRITETIME function which was added
in CASSANDRA-17425 and firstly introduced in 5.0-alpha1.
This function was identified to be redundant in favor of CASSANDRA-8877 and
CASSANDRA-18060.
The idea of the remo
17 matches
Mail list logo
