Thanks Jaydeep and Andy for the review! I have addressed the review comments and this should be ready for another look.
I wanted to give a heads up to the community that we should be merging this 5.0 backport soon in case there are any outstanding concerns. On Sun, Feb 22, 2026 at 12:59 AM Tolbert, Andy <[email protected]> wrote: > I finally got around to playing around with Paulo's 5.0 backport branch as > well and added some review feedback. I agree with Jaydeep that it looks > great, nice work Paulo! > > The write up on the PR in NEWS.txt ( > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/4558/changes#diff-95c20d744db732cdbca24c3e0406c10005ecf7fe8b5719c2fdf2b8af3fcedc79) > does a great job describing how to opt into the feature and how it > mitigates any risk. I'm hopeful that the approach taken here makes a > giving a +1 to a possible backport vote an easier choice for folks! > > Thanks! > Andy > > On Sun, Feb 8, 2026 at 8:03 PM Jaydeep Chovatia < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I have looked at the PR. Overall, it looks great. Added a few comments. >> >> Jaydeep >> >> On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 8:20 PM Jaydeep Chovatia < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
