And what if we just limited this to 5 or a 5.1? On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 11:55 AM Francisco Guerrero <[email protected]> wrote:
> The feature is pretty isolated. However there are some considerations > to take into account. The system_schema.tables adds a new field to the > schema, and we also have new tables in the system_distributed keyspace. > > I think we need to take a deeper look at the implications of the changes > and then make sure we have a solid plan for upgrades in lower versions. > > On 2025/12/02 19:44:53 Brandon Williams wrote: > > I'm +1 on this. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Brandon > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 1:36 PM Josh McKenzie <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > In a couple prior discuss threads, the topic of backporting in-project > repair scheduling (CEP-37) came up a few times and the consensus seemed to > be that everyone was receptive to us backporting this feature to all GA > branches. The goal of this thread is to focus on that and formalize > discussion and consensus before a potential vote. > > > > > > Here's a link to the CEP-37: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-37%3A+Apache+Cassandra+Unified+Repair+Solution > > > > > > And a link to the JIRA for the impl: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-19918 > > > > > > And here's the PR: > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/commit/6753fb49dcba6af6cccc02e62a5d425704d45b20 > > > > > > So: what do we think? > > > > > > I'm personally +1 on allowing this to be backported to 4.0, 4.1, and > 5.0. > > > > > > ----- > > > Prior reading: > > > - Discussing potential of a backport branch: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/xbxt21rttsqvhmh8ds9vs2cr7fx27w3k > > > - Discussing understanding fork motivations: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/5nv1f4bng4nw5ofgh135k5pf2f6l6lgl > > >
