You are right. Of course, there's no sense in making such a tool harder to write than it needs to be.
But I don't care that strongly since I won't be writing it. :P -Jonathan On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Sandeep Tata <[email protected]> wrote: > Won't things like multi-table support break binary compatibility anyway? > > We might be stuck with having to write a tool that migrates from a 0.3 > format to a 0.4 format. > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Jonathan Ellis <[email protected]> wrote: >> The fix for 208 [1] is fairly invasive. should we >> >> (a) release another RC and do more testing before 0.3 final, or >> (b) release 0.3 without these changes, and only add this fix to trunk? >> >> Although I see the 0.3 release primarily as a means to let people >> start playing with the cassandra data model, I don't know that I want >> to release it knowing that 0.4 is going to be binary-incompatible with >> the 0.3 data files. So I'd be inclined towards (a). >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-208 >> >> -Jonathan >> >
