> Major new features and architectural improvements should be > discussed first here, then when consensus on design is achieved, moved to > Jira for implementation and review. >
So the goal is to mitigate some of the (in most cases necessary) noise that bloated CASSANDRA-8844? (There are others, but this is a good example.) > I think this will also help with the problem when the initial idea proves > to be unworkable and gets revised substantially later after much > discussion. > In the case of CASSANDRA-8844, if Tupshin posted his summary here first, would this have streamlined some of the discussion? Again, if Josh had circled back around on the ML with some of his findings during implementation as opposed to Jira, would this be more clear to understand the ongoing development? (I'm not sure myself, just raising these for thinking about). There are some good points made on the concerns of traffic and fragmentation, so to refocus this discussion, we seem to have some general agreement on: 1. large contributions/design ideas would make sense to 'announce' on the ML (this will inherently inspire some level of discussion) 2. linking back to relevant ML announcements from Jira is a good practice I feel like starting here would be a good first step towards higher engagement on the ML w/o blowing up the traffic and potentially doing a bit of streamlining on our biggest issues. Thoughts? -Nate
