This isn't a hill to die on or something to binding -1 for me personally. In a vacuum this merge is totally fine. The problem for me comes in if a merge like this is one of 10, or 50, or 100 things that are innocuous in isolation. IMO as long as we make sure this is the only cut we do to ourselves we won't face death by a thousand cuts on 4.0.
In general I'm concerned about our rigor and discipline on restricting scope to get 4.0 out the door, but that's in no way unique to us as a project or 4.0 as a release; this has happened with every large software release I've ever worked on and always requires significant discomfort to lock down. It's unfortunate that the situation with this ticket stumbled across that sore point for me (and likely many of us), but I think we should keep that to the other thread about scope. On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:34 AM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Someone once said: > > "I heard the expression recently that “there are ten ways to do this, and > eight of them will work.” I think that applies to most of the code we > write. We don't need to spend a lot of time discussing which of the eight > is best; let’s trust the judgement of the original author and move > forward. " > > Had we applied that principle to this JIRA the first time the patch was > available in OCTOBER 2018, we wouldn't be having a conversation about > whether or not it violates a freeze. > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 11:37 AM Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think we should get serious about the so-called freeze. > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 1:27 PM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > > > > > Hey folks, > > > > > > I was looking through our open JIRAs and realized we hadn't merged in > > > server side describe calls yet. The ticket died off a ways ago, and I > > > pinged Chris about it yesterday. He's got a lot of his plate and won't > > be > > > able to work on it anytime soon. I still think we should include this in > > > 4.0. > > > > > > From a technical standpoint, It doesn't say much on the ticket after > > Robert > > > tossed an alternative patch out there. I don't mind reviewing and > > merging > > > either of them, it sounded like both are pretty close to done and I think > > > from the perspective of updating drivers for 4.0 this will save quite a > > bit > > > of time since driver maintainers won't have to add new CQL generation for > > > the various new options that have recently appeared. > > > > > > Questions: > > > > > > * Does anyone have an objection to getting this into 4.0? The patches > > > aren't too huge, I think they're low risk, and also fairly high reward. > > > * I don't have an opinion (yet) on Robert's patch vs Chris's, with regard > > > to which is preferable. > > > * Since soon after Robert put up his PR he hasn't been around, at least > > as > > > far as I've seen. How have we dealt with abandoned patches before? If > > > we're going to add this in the patch will need some cleanup. Is it > > > reasonable to continue someone else's work when they've disappeared? > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jonathan Ellis > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > > @spyced > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
