I don't think we need to vote on this. A few folks have expressed (very justified) concern, but nobody has gone nuclear.
I intended on cleaning up the patch and getting it ready for another review, but haven't had it in my brain and have been busy with other things. I don't claim exclusive rights to the clean up patch, if someone was motivated to do it I'd be 100% fine with it. :) On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 10:15 AM sankalp kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> wrote: > What are the next steps? Do we hold a vote as I see few initial emails > which dont seem to agree and have not replied based on future discussions. > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 12:50 PM Dinesh Joshi <djo...@apache.org> wrote: > > > +1 let's keep moving forward. > > > > Dinesh > > > > > On Apr 9, 2020, at 4:07 PM, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Ok cool. It sounds like we are moving this towards a consensus? (at > least > > > agreeing to disagree and moving forward). > > > > > > I very much the different inputs on this thread - thanks for a largely > > > healthy discussion folks. > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:03 AM Chris Lohfink <clohfin...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> I'd be in favor of going with the newer DESCRIBE option. The original > > patch > > >> was mostly focused on just getting the CQL correct and used virtual > > tables > > >> because its what the initial feedback was to do. Robert added a lot of > > >> functionality on top of what was there which is what people were > > starting > > >> to ask for. I am in favor of just going off of his patch and moving > > >> forward. I initially heard post 4.0 so I know I haven't been focused > on > > it > > >> but if theres desire to put it in 4.0 I am +1 on it and would like to > > see > > >> just going off of the Robert's latest patch. > > >> > > >> Chris > > >> > > >> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:41 AM Benjamin Lerer < > > benjamin.le...@datastax.com > > >>> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Thanks for your answer Alex. > > >>> > > >>> Some of the things we > > >>>> have explicitly (as a community) agreed to commit are still in > > >> progress, > > >>>> including several client protocol changes. And, to my understanding, > > if > > >>>> those are committed, it'll be what community has agreed upon. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> If the understanding of the community was that this patch was > expected > > to > > >>> go in 4.0 then it makes sense to commit it there. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> If the discussion is about whether or not to include _some_ version > of > > >>> the > > >>>> patch, I think including it makes sense, especially given the patch > > was > > >>>> there for a while and was not committed for non-technical reasons. > If > > >>> we're > > >>>> trying to decide _which_ patch to commit, I'd personally focus on > the > > >>>> original patch (to foster recognition), get it reviewed, and pick > any > > >>>> changes that make it better from the follow-up one (to foster > > >>>> collaboration). > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> I am fine going through both patches and figuring out a way to merge > > them > > >>> into one if Jon or somebody else is willing to review the output of > > that > > >>> merge > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:45 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > >>> bened...@apache.org> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> +1 all of this > > >>>> > > >>>> On 09/04/2020, 10:23, "Oleksandr Petrov" < > oleksandr.pet...@gmail.com > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> My understanding is that a majority of people ended up in favor > > >> of > > >>>> a DESCRIBE approach. Robert made a patch for that approach > > >> (according > > >>>> to > > >>>> his comment it was discussed with Chris beforehand). > > >>>> > > >>>> This sounds like just a switch of API (in other words, you use > the > > >>> same > > >>>> string generation, but return it via different means). From the > > >>>> (little) > > >>>> time I've spent looking at the patch, I remember that there > wasn't > > >>> much > > >>>> common code between the two (sorry if I'm remembering it wrong). > > >>>> > > >>>> If the discussion is about whether or not to include _some_ > version > > >>> of > > >>>> the > > >>>> patch, I think including it makes sense, especially given the > patch > > >>> was > > >>>> there for a while and was not committed for non-technical > reasons. > > >> If > > >>>> we're > > >>>> trying to decide _which_ patch to commit, I'd personally focus on > > >> the > > >>>> original patch (to foster recognition), get it reviewed, and pick > > >> any > > >>>> changes that make it better from the follow-up one (to foster > > >>>> collaboration). > > >>>> > > >>>>> Where do we draw the line? > > >>>> > > >>>> I would discuss changes on the case-by-case basis. Some of the > > >> things > > >>>> we > > >>>> have explicitly (as a community) agreed to commit are still in > > >>>> progress, > > >>>> including several client protocol changes. And, to my > > >> understanding, > > >>> if > > >>>> those are committed, it'll be what community has agreed upon. All > > >>>> further > > >>>> changes that weren't discussed yet - we can talk over. If it's > > >>>> something as > > >>>> trivial as server-side describe that doesn't risk stability but > > >> adds > > >>> a > > >>>> lot > > >>>> of value, it may make sense to include. But I woudln't attempt to > > >>> come > > >>>> up > > >>>> with a general rule for what we may or may not consider for now. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:21 PM Benjamin Lerer < > > >>>> benjamin.le...@datastax.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> 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 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> alex p > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>>> 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 > > > > >
