The other option, to avoid having two different v5 implementations, is to bump 4.0’s protocol version to 6. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:48 AM Jeremiah D Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My 2 cents. When we added V5 to 3.x wasn’t it added as a beta protocol > for tick/tock stuff and known that when a new version came out it would > most possibly break the older releases V5 beta stuff? Or at the very least > add new things to V5. So I see no reason to need to add more new features > to 3.11 v5. > > -Jeremiah > > > On Nov 7, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Oleksandr Petrov <oleksandr.pet...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > Currently, 3.11 supports V5 as a protocol version. However, all new > > features are now going to 4.0, which is going to be a new feature > release. > > > > Right now we have two v5 features: > > > > - CASSANDRA-10786 < > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10786> > > - CASSANDRA-12838 < > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-12838> > > > > > > #12838 is adding duration type, which is a nice addition. #10786 is also > > useful, but is more of an edge cases for users with huge clusters and/or > > frequent schema changes. > > > > If we leave v5 in 3.11, we'll have to always backport all v5 features to > > 3.11. This is something that hasn't been done in #10786. So the question > > is: are we ready to commit and support v5 in 3.11 "forever", or should we > > stop until it went too far and remove v5 from 3.11 since it's still in > beta > > there. > > > > Looking forward to hear your opinion, > > > > > > -- > > Alex Petrov > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
