+1 for getting an Apache release out there as soon as possible to show that the project is alive.
If we can resolve the following in some way I think it's ok to push this issue to 0.4.0: * We should make sure that end users are aware of this bug, in a known issues file or the readme for example, with a link to the jira ticket and a description of how it happens and how to avoid it. * Write up how each version is compatible with each other, as mentioned on IRC the 0.3.0 and 0.4.0 data files would not be compatible. * Work out roughly how common this problem will be, if all new users will hit it the release won't really be of much use. * Since the data files will be incompatible between versions, do we plan on bundling an upgrade tool? If not now, when? After 1.0? /Johan Jonathan Ellis wrote: > So, in light of Sandeep's point, I think I would prefer to do 0.3 now, > and try to do a short 0.4 cycle with current trunk and > > - the sstable redesign to address OOM problem > - multitable support > - patch to reduce logging impact so we look better in benchmarks :) > - fsync fix > - r/m old get_slice and rename get_slice_from to get_slice > > How does that sound? > > -Jonathan > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Jonathan Ellis <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >>>>
