There it is. I knew it would show up eventually.
On 04/04/2020, 06:26, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> scope creep.
I think it is unfair to label this scope creep; it would have to be newly
considered for 4.0 for it to fall under that umbrella.
I don't personally mind if it lands, but this was discussed at length on
multiple occasions over the past year, and only stalled because of a
combination of lack of etiquette, and a lack of leadership from e.g. PMC in
resolving various political questions over the course of events.
I also struggle to see how this would invalidate testing in any significant
way? It doesn't modify any existing behaviour.
________________________________
From: Joshua McKenzie <[email protected]>
Sent: 01 April 2020 19:24
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: server side describe
This looks like a feature that'd potentially invalidate some testing that's
been done and we've been feature frozen for over a year and a half. Also:
scope creep.
My PoV is we hold off. If we get into a cadence of more frequent releases
we'll have it soon enough.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:03 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
> Normally I ping the person on the ticket or in Slack to ask him/her for
> status update and whether I can help. Then probably he/she gives me a
> direction.
> If I can’t find the person anymore, I just use my best judgement and
> coordinate with people who might know better than me.
> For now this strategy worked for me personally.
> Hope this helps
> Ekaterina
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 1 Apr 2020, at 14:27, Jon Haddad <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > I was looking through our open JIRAs and realized we hadn't merged in
> > server side describe calls yet. The ticket died off a ways ago, and I
> > pinged Chris about it yesterday. He's got a lot of his plate and won't
> be
> > able to work on it anytime soon. I still think we should include this
in
> > 4.0.
> >
> > From a technical standpoint, It doesn't say much on the ticket after
> Robert
> > tossed an alternative patch out there. I don't mind reviewing and
> merging
> > either of them, it sounded like both are pretty close to done and I
think
> > from the perspective of updating drivers for 4.0 this will save quite a
> bit
> > of time since driver maintainers won't have to add new CQL generation
for
> > the various new options that have recently appeared.
> >
> > Questions:
> >
> > * Does anyone have an objection to getting this into 4.0? The patches
> > aren't too huge, I think they're low risk, and also fairly high reward.
> > * I don't have an opinion (yet) on Robert's patch vs Chris's, with
regard
> > to which is preferable.
> > * Since soon after Robert put up his PR he hasn't been around, at least
> as
> > far as I've seen. How have we dealt with abandoned patches before? If
> > we're going to add this in the patch will need some cleanup. Is it
> > reasonable to continue someone else's work when they've disappeared?
> >
> > Jon
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
