cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Evans (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-5156) CQL: loosen useless versioning constraint
Date Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:00:26 GMT


Eric Evans commented on CASSANDRA-5156:

It's possible that I'm simply stubborn, but I'm not seeing how moving from a widely-used,
documented, structured convention, to a less-structured ad hoc one will better communicate
changes and set expectations.  It assumes not only that your subjective decisions will be
more intuitive than documented objective criteria, but that all your successors decisions
will be as well.

At any rate, I think we understand each other, so it's probably better to agree to disagree
than to continue this discussion.

I just don't see it, but I won't get in your way if this is what you want.
> CQL: loosen useless versioning constraint
> -----------------------------------------
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-5156
>                 URL:
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
>            Assignee: Sylvain Lebresne
>            Priority: Trivial
>             Fix For: 1.2.1
>         Attachments: 5156.txt
> So far the CQL doc says the CQL language follows Meaning that a version
is X.Y.Z where:
> * X is the major version and denotes backward incompatible changes
> * Y is the minor version and denotes backward compatible changes
> * Z is the patch version and denotes backward *and* forward compatible changes, i.e.
change to the implementation.
> Now I don't think for CQL we have much use of the patch version. Not that knowing when
implementation fixes have been done is not useful but:
> # The Cassandra version number already kind of cover that.
> # While a patch version would be more precise in that it would only concern CQL3 related
changes, I have no illusion on our capacity in maintaining such patch version accuratly (and
frankly, I don't blame us).
> So instead of keeping a number that will end up having no usefulness whatsoever, I suggest
that we either:
> # remove it and have CQL3 version being just major and minor.
> # use that latter number as a sub-minor version, i.e. a version that only
> # denotes backward compatible changes, not forward ones. We would then bump the two last
digit at our discretion, to denote some form of "importance" of the changes.
> I don't care much about which of the two we end up doing, but since we already have a
3 numbers version and since I kind of like the idea of having two numbers to convey a sense
of importance of the changes, I'm attaching a patch for the 2nd solution.
> Note that the patch removes the changes section from the doc, but that's because I think
it's useless in it's current form (on top of being inaccurate).  I do plan on adding a new
changes section that lists changes between CQL minor version as soon as we have some of those.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see:

View raw message