I guess this is an excellent example to explore the minima of what constitutes a CEP. So far, CEPs have been some large changes, so where does something like this fit? (Wait. Did I beat Benedict to a Bike Shed? I think I did.)
This is a list of everything needed for a CEP: Status Scope Goals Approach Timeline Mailing list / Slack channels Related JIRA tickets Motivation Audience Proposed Changes New or Changed Public Interfaces Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan Test Plan Rejected Alternatives This is a big enough change to provide information for each element. Going back to the spirit of why we started CEPs, we wanted to avoid a mega-commit without some shaping and agreement before code goes into trunk. I don't have a clear indication of where that line lies. From our own wiki: "It is highly recommended to pursue a CEP for significant user-facing or changes that cut across multiple subsystems." That seems to fit here. Part of my motivation is being clear with potential new contributors by example and encouraging more awesomeness. The changes for operators: - New drivers - New gaurdrails? - Indexing == storage requirements Patrick On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 10:53 PM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote: > I was soooooo happy when I saw this, I know many users are going to be > thrilled about it. > > > On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 05:15, Patrick McFadin <pmcfa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Not sure if this is what you are saying, Josh, but I believe this needs >> to be its own CEP. It's a change in CQL syntax and changes how clusters >> operate. The change needs to be documented and voted on. Jonathan, you know >> how to find me if you want me to help write it. :) >> > > I'd be fine with just a DISCUSS thread to agree to the CQL change, since > it: `DENSE FLOAT32` appears to be a minimal, and the overall patch > building on SAI. As Henrik mentioned there's other SAI extensions being > added too without CEPs. Can you elaborate on how you see this changing how > the cluster operates? > > This will be easier to decide once we have a patch to look at, but that > depends on a CEP-7 base (e.g. no feature branch exists). If we do want a > CEP we need to allow a few weeks to get it through, but that can happen in > parallel and maybe drafting up something now will be valuable anyway for an > eventual CEP that proposes the more complete features (e.g. > cosine_similarity(…)). > > >
