As Eric said, a major release is not a license to make externally visible breaking changes. We are too mature a project now.
I have OCD tendencies like many people here, but one must learn to live with aesthetically imperfect tool output. Internal changes are fine, external changes that are actual bug fixes are fine (but need to be undertaken with good care still). > On 13 Jul 2023, at 23:36, Dinesh Joshi <djo...@apache.org> wrote: > > This adds maintenance overhead but is a potential alternative. I would only > flip the flag. I would prefer to make the default "legacy" output and > innovate behind a "--output-format=v2" flag. That way tools do not break or > have to change to pass in the new flag. > > Ideally we should always version our output format - structured or not. > > Dinesh > >> On Jul 13, 2023, at 9:08 AM, German Eichberger via dev >> <dev@cassandra.apache.org> wrote: >> >> Let's take this discussion in a different direction: If we add a --legacy >> <version> argument where we are supporting an old version for those who >> need/want it but have the (breaking) changes on the default this feels like >> a compromise - and then we can deprecate the legacy format without impacting >> innovation. We can also flip this with requiring a flag for the changed >> format if we feel this is better. >> >> This let's us innovate without breaking anyone. Thoughts? >> >> Thanks, >> German
