> > > On the other hand, if the patch authors never bring it up to the > standards of the rest of the project, well, then it's a good thing we > didn't commit it under a "commit now, fix later" process. > > > Maybe this fork could be prevented if committers could give the guidance? > > While it's true -- and unfortunate, mea culpa -- that the rest of us > weren't involved enough at the beginning of the counter design > process, that's not the case any more. >
Can we just let the patch committed but mark it as "alpah" or "experimental"? So that we can refine it after commit without breaking any contract? IIRC, the clock structure was pushed to trunk several months ago (Cassandra-1070 [1]). The "commit first, fix later" process is unavoidable even without this feature. This is my two cents on it. [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-1070 > > The people most familiar with this patch besides its authors are > myself and Sylvain, and we have said (starting a month ago) that > building on the Clock structure looks like the wrong approach. That's > a big change to the patch, so it's understandable that this is painful > for the authors. > > -- > Jonathan Ellis > Project Chair, Apache Cassandra > co-founder of Riptano, the source for professional Cassandra support > http://riptano.com >
