Agreeing with Stefan, Brandon, and Yifan here… We are ready to cut 5.0-rc1 and this thread (and any resulting work) is the only current blocker.
The argument for leaving things as they are, is… - MAXWRITETIME as-is is valuable. and is done. - We can't mark it deprecated until 18085 lands (ref yifan's point) - There is no guarantee that 18085 will ever land (it's already been patch ready for 18 months and no one has touched it) - The cost of MAXWRITETIME (in addition to 18085) really isn't that high (iiuc, it's just a cql keyword) I'd like to rephrase the thread's question. Does anyone have an objection to 5.0-rc1 being cut with the code as it is? And if so, are they willing to do the work asap that is required and blocking 5.0-rc1 ? On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 13:22, Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> wrote: > I should rather say that tests act as if the application of collection > functions to non-collection types would work but that functionality is not > in the prod code yet. > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 1:17 PM Štefan Miklošovič <smikloso...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> I do not feel comfortable to rush this. >> >> For completeness, this is the PR I managed to rebase >> >> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/3383 >> >> This is CI, bunch of tests are failing >> >> >> https://app.circleci.com/pipelines/github/instaclustr/cassandra/4406/workflows/d46e98e5-e931-41fc-ae51-a7202f3945e3 >> >> Whole WritetimeOrTTLTest fails ... >> >> I have not investigated what is going on there yet. I think that the PR >> already couts with the fact that the application of collection functions to >> non-collection types would work but tests are not aligned to that. >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 12:41 PM Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Nothing else is blocking the release currently, so unless 18085 is >>> ready to commit right now, I don't think it's worth delaying the >>> release any further. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Brandon >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 5:32 AM Jon Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > I’m on vacation, so I’ll keep this brief. While its not the end of >>> the world, I think shipping a feature that’s immediately deprecated >>> reflects poorly on the project and our ability to manage it. >>> > >>> > I don’t know how much work need to be done to merge that patch, so its >>> hard to say if we should wait for it or if we should ship 5.0 and make an >>> exception to add it in 5.0.1. I’d prefer 5.0.1 but i won’t die on this >>> hill. >>> > >>> > Jon >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 11:35 AM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 at 09:43, Sam Tunnicliffe <s...@beobal.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> 100% Option 1. Once it's out in GA release we're stuck with it so >>> any short term disruption to adopters of pre-release versions is a trivial >>> price to pay. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Sam, Jeremiah, Jeff, Jon, >>> >> >>> >> we need some clarity on this. >>> >> >>> >> To remove MAXWRITETIME (CASSANDRA-18078) we must now (as Yifan notes) >>> first add CASSANDRA-18085. >>> >> >>> >> 18085 was slated for 5.x >>> >> Are we really going to both a) remove an API that was already >>> released in a beta, and b) add in a new improvement into an rc ? >>> >> >>> >> This is the only remaining issue blocking us from cutting a 5.0-rc1. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>
