I don’t see too much risk for 5.0, but as Scott pointed out 4.x is a bit more annoying.
If you upgrade from 4.0.x to a 4.0.y that has this, that “should” work (I assume it would as trunk upgrade isn’t broken here) But what happens if you upgrade from 4.0.y (which has this feature) to 5.0.6 which doesn’t? I assume the upgrade would fail, as you have to be on 5.0.y to upgrade? Same issue with 4.0.y to 4.1.x too… I am not against 4.x back port, just want to make sure we are clear on the implications this has so we can discuss how best to deal with them > On Dec 2, 2025, at 1:10 PM, Chad Helms via dev <[email protected]> > wrote: > > +1 support on this. > > Would be very appreciated to have this in 4.0 & 5.0 specifically. (We are > skipping 4.1). > > Thanks, > Chad > > From: Josh McKenzie <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 at 13:37 > To: dev <[email protected]> > Subject: EXT: [DISCUSS] Backport CEP-37 to all GA branches > > EXTERNAL: Report suspicious emails to Email Abuse. > > 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 > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/CEP-37*3A*Apache*Cassandra*Unified*Repair*Solution__;JSsrKysr!!IfjTnhH9!T3wXvVYi-uiJvyH9brjHIf9HowFKL5deCBVUrUo7jxTFD6056e-gdKrFkAZmXfGFXD2bAE79orIMbiOiwkSP$> > > And a link to the JIRA for the impl: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-19918 > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-19918__;!!IfjTnhH9!T3wXvVYi-uiJvyH9brjHIf9HowFKL5deCBVUrUo7jxTFD6056e-gdKrFkAZmXfGFXD2bAE79orIMbqRVTRG8$> > > And here's the PR: > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/commit/6753fb49dcba6af6cccc02e62a5d425704d45b20 > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/cassandra/commit/6753fb49dcba6af6cccc02e62a5d425704d45b20__;!!IfjTnhH9!T3wXvVYi-uiJvyH9brjHIf9HowFKL5deCBVUrUo7jxTFD6056e-gdKrFkAZmXfGFXD2bAE79orIMbq3sug-G$> > > So: what do we think? > > I'm personally +1 on allowing this to be backported to 4.0, 4.1, and 5.0. > > ----- > Prior reading: > - Discussing potential of a backport branch: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/xbxt21rttsqvhmh8ds9vs2cr7fx27w3k > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.apache.org/thread/xbxt21rttsqvhmh8ds9vs2cr7fx27w3k__;!!IfjTnhH9!T3wXvVYi-uiJvyH9brjHIf9HowFKL5deCBVUrUo7jxTFD6056e-gdKrFkAZmXfGFXD2bAE79orIMbp0tIDZV$> > - Discussing understanding fork motivations: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/5nv1f4bng4nw5ofgh135k5pf2f6l6lgl > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.apache.org/thread/5nv1f4bng4nw5ofgh135k5pf2f6l6lgl__;!!IfjTnhH9!T3wXvVYi-uiJvyH9brjHIf9HowFKL5deCBVUrUo7jxTFD6056e-gdKrFkAZmXfGFXD2bAE79orIMbjs29cR1$>
