On 2024/06/21 12:00:43 Mick Semb Wever wrote: > Agreeing with Stefan, Brandon, and Yifan here… >
Yeah, I agree as well. We want to either have an alternative to MAXWRITETIME or preserve the existing functionality. > 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 ? No objections to cutting the code as it is. > > > > > 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. > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > >> >
