I will take a look at it. Happy to see AutoRepair in 5.0. Thank you for the patch, Paulo!
Jaydeep On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 3:27 PM Tolbert, Andy <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd be happy to take a look at reviewing this as well as I would be > excited to see Auto Repair in 5.0. Thank you for the patch, Paulo! > > Andy > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 5:13 PM Paulo Motta <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have submitted a patch porting AutoRepair to 5.0 on CASSANDRA-21138[1] >> and tagged Jaydeep Chovatia for review. I would greatly appreciate other >> sets of eyes, especially those involved with the original CEP-37 effort. >> >> The feature is disabled by default and no schema changes are made unless >> a JVM flag is enabled to reduce upgrade risk to users who do not intend to >> enable this feature. >> >> Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns about having >> this merged in 5.0. >> >> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-21138 >> >> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 8:34 PM Jaydeep Chovatia < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Sure, I am happy to review it whenever it's ready, Paulo. Please let me >>> know. >>> >>> Jaydeep >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 8:32 AM Paulo Motta <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I agree with Scott. I don't think we should backport this to 4.1 due to >>>> the compatibility issues raised plus this branch has already been >>>> stabilized for a while. >>>> >>>> I think backporting auto-repair to 5.0 would be more appropriate as it >>>> would encourage users to adopt this version and get closer to trunk, rather >>>> than encouraging users to stick to an older version. >>>> >>>> I decided to take a stab at backporting auto-repair + additional fixes >>>> to 5.0 on this preliminary PR: >>>> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/4558 >>>> >>>> It's not ready for review yet since I need to gate the schema changes >>>> under a feature flag, but I think I can get it ready by the end of week. >>>> >>>> If there's no opposition against shipping this in 5.0 maybe I can >>>> create a JIRA and have Jaydeep review it ? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 11:15 AM C. Scott Andreas <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> For the purpose of a quick straw poll, I’m not opposed to backporting >>>>> to 5.x, but I don’t support backporting to 4.x-series releases for the >>>>> compatibility and upgrade complexity reasons previously discussed. >>>>> >>>>> - Scott >>>>> >>>>> > On Jan 12, 2026, at 1:27 AM, Štefan Miklošovič < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Hi everybody, >>>>> > >>>>> > I want to refresh this thread after the holidays. Is there an >>>>> > agreement we reached? Is everybody on board with backporting to 4.1+? >>>>> > How are we going to do this concretely? I guess Jaydeep would be >>>>> > involved in the backporting as he just said. I honestly do not think >>>>> > there is anybody else better suited to make it happen and your >>>>> > willingness to do that is really appreciated. >>>>> > >>>>> > Regards >>>>> > >>>>> >> On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 5:38 AM Jaydeep Chovatia >>>>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> FYI—regardless of the outcome, you can count on me to port CEP-37 >>>>> in whatever form the community agrees on. As mentioned earlier, I’m >>>>> already >>>>> maintaining a private 4.1.6 fork ( >>>>> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/3367). >>>>> >> Thank you! >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Jaydeep >>>>> >> >>>>> >>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 7:43 AM Micah Green <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> I'm really interested in this thread, but don't see an update on >>>>> where we landed in terms of backporting and also the amount of work >>>>> involved. I'm all for backporting to 5.x minimally! I'm planning our >>>>> 2026 >>>>> work and where this discussion goes will really help me optimally plan, >>>>> which is why I'm asking. >>>>> >>> Thanks! >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> On Sun, Dec 7, 2025 at 4:44 PM Ekaterina Dimitrova < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Seems like the 4.1 branch would still require some work to cover >>>>> everything raised on this thread? Have anyone evaluated how much work that >>>>> can be? >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I agree porting to 4.1, but not 4.0 is kind of weird. Then >>>>> probably we better have it only in 5.0? >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Do people think it makes sense to create some kind of user survey >>>>> around this work, too? Posted in @user >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 at 9:00, Josh McKenzie <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Otherwise it feels weird backporting to 4.1 but not 4.0, and >>>>> backporting to both would increase the risk and maintenance burden. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would but by how much? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2 things jump out to me re: risk and maintenance: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Risk: We kind of need to tackle the "version straddle w/schema >>>>> table diffs is currently Bad and makes rollbacks manual and brittle" >>>>> broadly; this feature is just one more example of that though it's a >>>>> little >>>>> exacerbated by discussing doing something like this in a patch release. >>>>> The >>>>> ergonomics of the "one-way-door without a human manually deleting columns" >>>>> part holds true cross-MAJOR too. "Progress" here seems like it's either we >>>>> handle this on a case-by-case basis w/flags to remove those schema entries >>>>> on rollback (kinda ew), or more durably with an elegant solution in the >>>>> long term, i.e. capabilities framework, though that doesn't answer the "we >>>>> explode when schemas don't match" bit. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Maintenance: maintaining this across 4 branches is clearly more >>>>> toil than across 2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm personally kind of keen for us to tackle that Risk bit; I'd >>>>> like all of us to be able to more freely consider making changes to schema >>>>> tables w/out the complexity burden we have right now and the operator toil >>>>> and risk that comes along with it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The maintenance toil bit - I have less opinions on. Kind of >>>>> depends on how many people are on 4.0/4.1 right now that we'd expect to be >>>>> on 4.1 for another year until 7.0 hits and whether we think they'd benefit >>>>> from the feature (and contribute to bettering it) during that year I >>>>> guess. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2025, at 5:57 PM, Paulo Motta wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Otherwise it feels weird backporting to 4.1 but not 4.0, and >>>>> backporting to both would increase the risk and maintenance burden. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>
