In one of the first threads I said I wasn't interested in stalling the 0.4 release. I also said we would write the patches. We talked about the change to Ellis first at the hackfest a month ago; it's taken a lot of work to get it right.
Plus, we build the Ruby client first, which seemed more important. The experience of building a comprehensive client helped convince us the naming was a problem. Fundamentally there is a disagreement about the cost of the breakage vs. the benefit of the improvement. If we are open to accepting such a change for 0.5 then that seems worth discussing. Ellis suggested taking a vote, so I will do that, and then we can move on. Evan On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Jonathan Ellis<[email protected]> 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 > -- Evan Weaver
