On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Toby DiPasquale<[email protected]> wrote: > That feels to me to be a short-sighted point of view. I'd imagine that > its more important for people be able to understand the data model > than meeting some kind of arbitrary timeline. I, too, find the current > naming confusing and would love for this to be improved
I'm going to have to call bullshit on the idea that this is about taking the time to get things right on the one hand and "meeting some kind of arbitrary timeline" on the other. Put that way, the choice is obvious! Except of course that is not a fair representation of the tradeoffs. The release timeline isn't something arbitrary we pulled out of our asses. 0.3 has serious issues that 0.4 fixes, including but not limited to the API. (The changelog was recently posted; I won't repeat it here.) Having an updated, stable 0.4 out there will be far more valuable to the project than rearranging the deck chairs of terminology. Cassandra is fundamentally a different model than the relational one everyone knows and loves. That's the root of the problem with understanding Cassandra: the concepts. The labels you attach to those, not so much. Again, we've been clear about the direction and the timeline for 0.4. This kind of proposal needed to happen a month ago. It didn't. That may be a shame, but that's how it works, and trying to hold up everyone else for your pet feature (without even patches! you'll pardon me if the implication seems to be that you expect others to do that part for you) is rude. That's not how OSS should work. -Jonathan
