This makes sense and is alongside with the previous discussions about v5. I agree with Adam and Jeremiah on that.
Thank you for the input. I will adjust the tests tomorrow. Best regards, Alex Petrov > On 7. Nov 2017, at 18:32, Adam Holmberg <adam.holmb...@datastax.com> wrote: > > I agree that it is okay to leave v5 beta behind. As I recall, the point of > beta was less about trying stuff early, but more to allow early > implementation and testing of new protocol features, before the scope was > finalized. Now that v5 proper has diverged from beta it is no longer > supported. I don't see much value in back-porting, nor do I think we > should increment versions in order to maintain compatibility with > something that was expressly beta. > > I think we should disable v5 testing in 3.x branch and let the v5 spec > continue to evolve in *non-beta* status in 4.0 until it is finalized upon > release. > > Adam Holmberg > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:57 AM, J. D. Jordan <jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Again. V5 beta in 3.11 was always meant to stop working when future things >> happened to V5 in the drivers and in C*. I see no problem with leaving the >> beta V5, which is an opt in thing to try out, in 3.11 alone. 4.0 will have >> the full non beta V5 with extra stuff in it, and will not work with beta V5. >> Nothing uses the beta V5 by default. It is an opt in thing to be used if >> you wanted to try out stuff early. >> >> -Jeremiah >> >>> On Nov 7, 2017, at 11:39 AM, Oleksandr Petrov < >> oleksandr.pet...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> This is an option, you're right. In this case v5 will have just one >>> feature, however, and the only feature (Duration type) should work with >> via >>> CustomTypes through v4. >>> >>> Looks like the Jira numbers were off, so let me do it again: >>> >>> In 3.11 we have: >>> * CASSANDRA-12838 - Extend native protocol flags and add supported >>> versions to the SUPPORTED response >>> * CASSANDRA-12142 - Add "beta" version native protocol flag >>> * CASSANDRA-12850 - Add the duration type to the protocol V5 <-- (this >>> one should also work with v4) >>> >>> In 4.0 we have >>> * CASSANDRA-10786 - Include hash of result set metadata in prepared >>> statement id >>> >>> And the options: >>> >>> * (1) remove v5 from 3.11 by reverting #12838 and #12142 >>> * (2) support v5 in 3.11 forever and backport #10786 >>> * (3) bump 4.0 version to v6 and make sure that #10786 is v6 >>> >>> Question with (1) is mostly whether or not we would like to cut another >>> version release because of (in essence) #12838 only, since #12142 is not >>> relevant in the context and #12850 will still work. >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:19 PM Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Alex Petrov >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
