Hi, ok, so this will make it to 4.0 then.
I would re-iterate on FQL logging though. What is our decision? Should these passwords be clearly visible or we should obfuscate them too? I am trying to close all remaining questions, while I do get that passwords in audit are for sure problematic, I do not think that I have a clear agreement what we should do with FQL yet. Thank you On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 15:22, Ekaterina Dimitrova <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1, please, reclassify it as a bug. > Thank you Stefan > > On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 9:13, Brandon Williams <dri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 4:32 AM Sam Tunnicliffe <s...@beobal.com> wrote: > > > Shipping a brand new, non-experimental feature with a security hole like > > this feels > > > counter to our goal of releases being prod ready in .0, so I'm +1 on > > including it in > > > an rc/ga > > > > I think I have to agree here. We can ship a complete feature, we can > > remove it and not ship it, but what is not acceptable is shipping it > > in a broken and potentially dangerous state. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
