+1 on the idea of releasing what’s already there and what’s possible without
big effort for 3.0.
Instead of labeling it 2.2, I’d like to propose to label it 3.0 (so basically
just move 8099 to 3.1).
In the end it’s ”only a label”. But there are a lot of new user-facing features
in it that justi
Releasing a 2.2 now is indeed a good idea, +1 to that.
Regarding EOLs, however, there I don’t feel like dropping the planned 3.0.x
stabilisation branch is necessary.
I’d also say that having both 2.1.x and 2.2.x LTS branches is both 1) very
cheap for us and 2) is not really needed.
Here is why
How about naming it 2.9 as a development preview version before 3.0? If
this version and 3.0 are close in functionality, it is not a good idea that
the two version number have a huge difference. And after 3.0 being shipped,
I think we should stop maintaining this version because of the similarity
w
To clarify, I'm +1ing the creation of a stable 2.2 branch, prior to
8099, in order to not block certain key features, as mentioned. Neutral
on any additional nuances.
-Tupshin
On Sun, May 10, 2015, at 08:05 AM, tups...@tupshin.com wrote:
> +1
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2015, at 06:38 PM, Jonathan Ellis
+1
On Sat, May 9, 2015, at 06:38 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> *With 8099 still weeks from being code complete, and even longer from
> being
> stable, I’m starting to think we should decouple everything that’s
> already
> done in trunk from 8099. That is, ship 2.2 ASAP with - Windows support-
> UDF
OK so I know a little more now, it's not doable in client mode ATM because
it rely to much on server side stuff.
It needs to initialize ColumnFamilyStore and use an instance of it
afterwards, which will require to much server-side configuration
initialization.
Secondly the way it streams is ineff
