[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5156?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13556375#comment-13556375
]
Eric Evans commented on CASSANDRA-5156:
---------------------------------------
It's possible that I'm simply stubborn, but I'm not seeing how moving from a
widely-used, documented, structured convention, to a less-structured ad hoc one
will better communicate changes and set expectations. It assumes not only that
your subjective decisions will be more intuitive than documented objective
criteria, but that all your successors decisions will be as well.
At any rate, I think we understand each other, so it's probably better to agree
to disagree than to continue this discussion.
I just don't see it, but I won't get in your way if this is what you want.
> CQL: loosen useless versioning constraint
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-5156
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-5156
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
> Assignee: Sylvain Lebresne
> Priority: Trivial
> Fix For: 1.2.1
>
> Attachments: 5156.txt
>
>
> So far the CQL doc says the CQL language follows http://semver.org/. Meaning
> that a version is X.Y.Z where:
> * X is the major version and denotes backward incompatible changes
> * Y is the minor version and denotes backward compatible changes
> * Z is the patch version and denotes backward *and* forward compatible
> changes, i.e. change to the implementation.
> Now I don't think for CQL we have much use of the patch version. Not that
> knowing when implementation fixes have been done is not useful but:
> # The Cassandra version number already kind of cover that.
> # While a patch version would be more precise in that it would only concern
> CQL3 related changes, I have no illusion on our capacity in maintaining such
> patch version accuratly (and frankly, I don't blame us).
> So instead of keeping a number that will end up having no usefulness
> whatsoever, I suggest that we either:
> # remove it and have CQL3 version being just major and minor.
> # use that latter number as a sub-minor version, i.e. a version that only
> # denotes backward compatible changes, not forward ones. We would then bump
> the two last digit at our discretion, to denote some form of "importance" of
> the changes.
> I don't care much about which of the two we end up doing, but since we
> already have a 3 numbers version and since I kind of like the idea of having
> two numbers to convey a sense of importance of the changes, I'm attaching a
> patch for the 2nd solution.
> Note that the patch removes the changes section from the doc, but that's
> because I think it's useless in it's current form (on top of being
> inaccurate). I do plan on adding a new changes section that lists changes
> between CQL minor version as soon as we have some of those.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
