On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 at 06:06, Jeremiah Jordan
wrote:
> TL;DR - in progress migration off 2.2 to 5.0 is annoying as there were
>>> different bugs in the past we have to support again. Out of process
>>> migration to me feels far more plausible, but feels annoying without
>>> splitting off our rea
-
>> and if this happen I would vote for maven as replacement. :-D
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 11:42 AM Miklosovic, Stefan via dev <
>> dev@cassandra.apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> These are all good ideas but in practical terms I think that will not
>>
ntil we are out of Ant as doing this multi jar / subproject mumbo
> jumbo is not too much appealing to ... anybody?
>
>
> From: Paulo Motta
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 17:35
> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Supporting
> mailto:dev@cassandra.apache.org>> wrote:
>>> These are all good ideas but in practical terms I think that will not
>>> happen until we are out of Ant as doing this multi jar / subproject mumbo
>>> jumbo is not too much appealing to ... anybody?
>>>
>>> ___
ms I think that will not
>> happen until we are out of Ant as doing this multi jar / subproject mumbo
>> jumbo is not too much appealing to ... anybody?
>>
>> ____________
>> From: Paulo Motta
>> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 20
ect mumbo
>>> jumbo is not too much appealing to ... anybody?
>>>
>>> ____
>>> From: Paulo Motta
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 17:35
>>> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Supporting 2
actical terms I think that will not happen
>> until we are out of Ant as doing this multi jar / subproject mumbo jumbo is
>> not too much appealing to ... anybody?
>>
>>
>> From: Paulo Motta
>> Sent: Thursday, Dec
__
>>> From: Benedict <bened...@apache.orgbened...@apache.org>>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 13:09
>>> To: dev@cassandra.apache.orgdev@cassandra.apache.org>
>>> Cc: Miklosovic, Stefan; dev@cassandra.apache.orgdev@cas
; until we are out of Ant as doing this multi jar / subproject mumbo jumbo is
>> not too much appealing to ... anybody?
>>
>>
>> From: Paulo Motta
>> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 17:35
>> To: dev@cassandr
st 3.11, right? I guess 2.2 -> 3.0 already works, we would just try to
> support 2.2 -> 3.11 straight away. I need to check where we are at in that
> area.
> >>>
> >>> ____
> >>> From: Benedict mailto:b
: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Supporting 2.2 -> 5.0 upgrades
EXTERNAL EMAIL - USE CAUTION when clicking links or attachments
> +1 on moving the read/write logic into its own jar.
+1, not only read-write logic but anything used by both the server and
subprojects (ie. cassandra-s
meant basically the
> latest 3.11, right? I guess 2.2 -> 3.0 already works, we would just try to
> support 2.2 -> 3.11 straight away. I need to check where we are at in that
> area.
> >>>
> >>> ____________
> >>> From: Benedict
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 20
I need to check where we are at in that
>>> area.
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Benedict
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 13:09
>>> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
>>> Cc: Miklosovic, Stefan; dev@c
would just try to support
>> 2.2 -> 3.11 straight away. I need to check where we are at in that area.
>>
>>
>> From: Benedict
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 13:09
>> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
>> Cc:
pache.org
> Cc: Miklosovic, Stefan; dev@cassandra.apache.org; Miklosovic, Stefan
> Subject: Re: Supporting 2.2 -> 5.0 upgrades
>
> EXTERNAL EMAIL - USE CAUTION when clicking links or attachments
>
>
>
>
> 2.2 is particularly hard because of the major storage format c
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 13:09
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Cc: Miklosovic, Stefan; dev@cassandra.apache.org; Miklosovic, Stefan
Subject: Re: Supporting 2.2 -> 5.0 upgrades
EXTERNAL EMAIL - USE CAUTION when clicking links or attachments
2.2 is particularly hard because of the major stora
2.2 is particularly hard because of the major storage format changes that took
place.
I think if we want to retain (restore) upgrade support from 3.x I would support
that, but 2.x is probably too burdensome and likely to have too many hard edges.
I think if users only had to upgrade 2.2->3.x th
Hey,
I want to fork the thread where we are mentioning that 2.2 -> 5.0 would be cool
to support.
I was involved in checking that offline upgrades from 3.0 to 5.0 work and fixed
few issues along the way (1), hence I can imagine that supporting 2.2 -> 5.0
would be basically the same thing just o
18 matches
Mail list logo
