Myself I would put my non-binding vote for the stable side. I think those are both important, but maybe they are best as some of the first things to go into “release after 4.0”, not the last things to go into 4.0. Maybe they would also prove as some incentive to get the next release out the door a little quicker than 4.0 will end up being ;).
-Jeremiah On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:46 PM, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'd like to see pluggable storage and transient replica tickets land, for >> starters. > > I think both those features are, frankly, necessary for our future. On > the other hand, they both have the following risks: > 1. core behavioral changes > 2. require changing a (relatively) large surface area of code > > We can aim to de-risk 4.0 by focusing on what we have now which is > solid repair and NIO internode (maybe we move the 4.0 branch timeline > up?), aiming for a 4.1 following soon-ish. > > Or we can go in eyes open and agree on a larger footprint 4.0. > > I'm on the fence, tbh (can't emphasize enough how big both those > features will be). I just want everyone to know what we are getting > into and that we are potentially impacting our goals of "stable" == > "exciting." > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
