Thanks a lot for all the feedback, I really appreciate the discussion and Paulo's proposals.
Regarding the ongoing patches: Based on the discussion, it clearly appears that nodetool will still be there for some time (and will be there in the next major release). As such, it seems to me that the current ongoing patches to add new nodetool commands will be useful. I honestly do not see the point at this stage of preventing them from going in and I can totally understand the frustration of the people that have spent time on making them. I did not trigger that discussion with that goal in mind. My goal was more to clarify our strategy for the future. It seems only fair to me to let these patches go in and simply thank the contributors for their efforts and work. We can open some followup tickets for providing those functionalities through Virtual Tables (we are only talking about 2 patches). If nobody else takes them, I will. Le ven. 16 juil. 2021 à 10:17, Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> a écrit : > > > > > Until CEP exists and is approved, work on patches in flight seems > > reasonable and valid. > > > > This is right, but when there is an active discussion about changing the > > status quo it's polite to wait for the outcome of the discussion - or > help > > it make progress - before making potentially conflicting changes. > > > > > Totally agree. > This question has been asked many times, and is often getting answered by > fragmented groups. The broader discussion is definitely warranted (thank > you Benjamin). > > Stefan, looking at the patch for CASSANDRA-16725, it is only intended for > trunk so it has 6 months to land. I'm definitely in favour of seeing it > also be put into a vtable. It doesn't change the patch much, just an ask > for a trivial class to be added, and that is a reasonable request to make > through the review rounds. (A few rounds during the review like this is > _perfectly normal_, and is only going to improve the patch in other areas, > like changing the code to use Config.PROPERTY_PREFIX and > CassandraRelevantProperties). > But I can take this feedback to the ticket. Also happy to help out (as any > reviewer that makes a suggestion should be!) >
