On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 1:14 PM sankalp kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it is important to think why we are here. We are here as we shipped > 3.0 with 10s of correctness bug. So the statements should be > "3.0 shipped with 10s of correctness bugs and that is causing contributions > to go away and stopping innovation" I think we're making logical leaps again without any real foundation, it could be argued that innovation is not happening because there is no place for it to happen just as easily. > "Lack of 4.0 release due to 3.0 shipping with 10s of correctness bugs is > causing people to think C* is dead." This is probably true. > Once we start putting it this way, we can start debating on how not to make > 4.0 like 3.0 and cause 5.0 to be delayed. This again seems based on an assumption that allowing feature work will deter correctness work. Is there any evidence of that, with the merge onus removed? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
