We have already discussed it for several days and I believe that all the points have been brought to the table.
I took the time to read CASSANDRA-14825 this morning to understand the full story. All the discussion has been about using Virtual Tables versus using DESCRIBE. My understanding is that a majority of people ended up in favor of a DESCRIBE approach (skipping the details on purpose here). Robert made a patch for that approach (according to his comment it was discussed with Chris beforehand). The question here is should: we agree to put it in 4.0 even if the version is frozen for improvements. My main reason against it is that if we broke the freeze for every ticket we believe might be useful we will end up delaying 4.0 a lot. Are there not other tickets that are more valuable than CASSANDRA-14825, that are not included in 4.0? Where do we draw the line? I believe that if we were able to answer that question it would suddenly become much easier to agree on which tickets we put in 4.0. On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 1:25 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > There it is. I knew it would show up eventually. > > On 04/04/2020, 06:26, "bened...@apache.org" <pub...@belliottsmith.com> > wrote: > > > scope creep. > > I think it is unfair to label this scope creep; it would have to be > newly considered for 4.0 for it to fall under that umbrella. > > I don't personally mind if it lands, but this was discussed at length > on multiple occasions over the past year, and only stalled because of a > combination of lack of etiquette, and a lack of leadership from e.g. PMC in > resolving various political questions over the course of events. > > I also struggle to see how this would invalidate testing in any > significant way? It doesn't modify any existing behaviour. > > ________________________________ > From: Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > Sent: 01 April 2020 19:24 > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> > Subject: Re: server side describe > > This looks like a feature that'd potentially invalidate some testing > that's > been done and we've been feature frozen for over a year and a half. > Also: > scope creep. > > My PoV is we hold off. If we get into a cadence of more frequent > releases > we'll have it soon enough. > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:03 PM <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > Normally I ping the person on the ticket or in Slack to ask him/her > for > > status update and whether I can help. Then probably he/she gives me a > > direction. > > If I can’t find the person anymore, I just use my best judgement and > > coordinate with people who might know better than me. > > For now this strategy worked for me personally. > > Hope this helps > > Ekaterina > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On 1 Apr 2020, at 14:27, 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 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > >
