Added those to the list, thanks. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote:
> 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 > > -- Jonathan Ellis Project Chair, Apache Cassandra co-founder, http://www.datastax.com @spyced
