> we (including me) have done a lot of stupid shit over the years on this > project. Half the time “this is how we’ve historically done X” to me is a > strong argument to start doing things differently. Oof. The truth (when applied to myself) hurts doesn't it? :)
> I suggest we should have a way to read/write from/to all sstable versions, I > absolutely agree this is useful (e.g. backups in storage). And we should be > better at thorough testing. Having an external library that both C* and other tools could rely on that handles SSTable reading and writing could actually be a very clean solution to helping encourage a broader ecosystem of things that want to interface with Cassandra but don't necessarily want to go through the StorageEngine to do it. Nevermind the value it'd bring to the table internally in terms of supporting longer upgrade cycles in C*, making what Claude is wrestling with on downgrades a lot simpler, etc. Would probably be much cleaner to test thoroughly and less overhead to continue to maintain support for longer term as well. On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, at 12:28 PM, Jeremiah D Jordan wrote: > > As for precedent - we (including me) have done a lot of stupid shit over > > the years on this project. Half the time “this is how we’ve historically > > done X” to me is a strong argument to start doing things differently. This > > is one such case. > > +1. I definitely agree that this is one area of precedent that we should not > be following. The project has historically been fairly hostile towards > longer upgrade timelines, I am glad to see all the recent conversations where > this seems to be improving. > > -Jeremiah
