I agree that this is too late for 0.4. 0.4 is a huge improvement over 0.3, we've already released a beta, a second beta should be forthcoming, and we need to get this in users' hands. I'm not sure I agree with Jonathan's corollary, as there should always be room for making changes which would benefit our users, even major API changes (after 1.0, this might be a different story). Evan, Ryan, et al. have put a lot of work into this, and their proposals are sound. However, there are now several groups using Cassandra in production or pre-production systems that would like to see a 0.4 release out soon.
Michael On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Chris Goffinet <[email protected]>wrote: > +1 I am going to agree with Jonathan. I have been quiet mostly on this > thread, just to see how things played out. I stopped reading after awhile, > as I feel we really need to move past this for now, and defer. Improving > cassandra's performance, feature set and stability should be our focus IMHO. > Right now we have features that make it difficult to deploy into production. > Until we have those things resolved and working, having major user adoption > isn't going to help until we get all of those things worked out. > > > > On Aug 24, 2009, at 8:53 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Toby DiPasquale<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> That was not my intent. Evan's provided some good stuff. However, I >>> think your original post would not have incited my post if you'd >>> provided some point at which this could be re-evaluated instead of >>> implying that the subject needed to be dropped altogether. Do you have >>> a suggestion as to when this could be revisited? >>> >> >> The corollary to "it's too late for 0.4" is "it's too late, period." >> >> Every project reaches a point past which it's no longer worth >> revisiting certain fundamental decisions. IMO Cassandra has passed >> that point for "what do we call a Column." >> >> -Jonathan >> > >
