I’ve got one - UDF using ecj instead of javassist (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8241 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8241>). Not sure whether the licensing thing is fine that way (about what ”appropriately labeled“ really means in https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b <https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b>).
One thing that may annoy using UDFs w/ tuples & UDTs is #9186. It’s about "frozen“ getting lost in the signature. Probably also include #9229 (timeuuid to date/time conversion) ? > Am 12.05.2015 um 09:05 schrieb Marcus Eriksson <krum...@gmail.com>: > > We should get https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8568 in 2.2 > as well (it is patch avail and I'll get it reviewed this week) > > /Marcus > > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sounds good. I will add the new version to Jira. >> >> Planned tickets to block 2.2 beta for: >> >> #8374 >> #8984 >> #9190 >> >> Any others? (If it's not code complete today we should not block for it.) >> >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko <alek...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>>> So I think EOLing 2.0.x when 2.2 comes >>>> out is reasonable, especially considering that 2.2 is realistically a >>> month >>>> or two away even if we can get a beta out this week. >>> >>> Given how long 2.0.x has been alive now, and the stability of 2.1.x at >> the >>> moment, I’d say it’s fair enough to EOL 2.0 as soon as 2.2 gets out. >> Can’t >>> argue here. >>> >>>> If push comes to shove I'm okay being ambiguous here, but can we just >>> say >>>> "when 3.0 is released we EOL 2.1?" >>> >>> Under our current projections, that’ll be exactly “a few months after 2.2 >>> is released”, so I’m again fine with it. >>> >>>> P.S. The area I'm most concerned about introducing destabilizing >> changes >>> in >>>> 2.2 is commitlog >>> >>> So long as you don’t you compressed CL, you should be solid. You are >>> probably solid even if you do use compressed CL. >>> >>> Here are my only concerns: >>> >>> 1. New authz are not opt-in. If a user implements their own custom >>> authenticator or authorized, they’d have to upgrade them sooner. The test >>> coverage for new authnz, however, is better than the coverage we used to >>> have before. >>> >>> 2. CQL2 is gone from 2.2. Might force those who use it migrate faster. In >>> practice, however, I highly doubt that anybody using CQL2 is also someone >>> who’d already switch to 2.1.x or 2.2.x. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> AY >>> >>> On May 11, 2015 at 21:12:26, Jonathan Ellis (jbel...@gmail.com) wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko <alek...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 3.0, however, will require a stabilisation period, just by the nature >> of >>>> it. It might seem like 2.2 and 3.0 are closer to each other than 2.1 >> and >>>> 2.2 are, if you go purely by the feature list, but in fact the opposite >>> is >>>> true. >>>> >>> >>> You are probably right. But let me push back on some of the extra work >>> you're proposing just a little: >>> >>> 1) 2.0.x branch goes EOL when 3.0 is out, as planned >>>> >>> >>> 3.0 was, however unrealistically, planned for April. And it's moving the >>> goalposts to say the plan was always to keep 2.0.x for three major >>> releases; the plan was to EOL with "the next major release after 2.1" >>> whether that was called 3.0 or not. So I think EOLing 2.0.x when 2.2 >> comes >>> out is reasonable, especially considering that 2.2 is realistically a >> month >>> or two away even if we can get a beta out this week. >>> >>> 2) 3.0.x LTS branch stays, as planned, and helps us stabilise the new >>>> storage engine >>>> >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>> >>>> 3) in a few months after 2.2 gets released, we EOL 2.1. Users upgrade >> to >>>> 2.2, get the same stability as with 2.1.7, plus a few new features >>>> >>> >>> If push comes to shove I'm okay being ambiguous here, but can we just say >>> "when 3.0 is released we EOL 2.1?" >>> >>> P.S. The area I'm most concerned about introducing destabilizing changes >> in >>> 2.2 is commitlog; I will follow up to make sure we have a solid QA plan >>> there. >>> >>> -- >>> Jonathan Ellis >>> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra >>> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com >>> @spyced >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Jonathan Ellis >> Project Chair, Apache Cassandra >> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com >> @spyced >> — Robert Stupp @snazy
