incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 0.3 and the OOM gremlin (CASSANDRA-208)
Date Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:59:29 GMT
You are right.  Of course, there's no sense in making such a tool
harder to write than it needs to be.

But I don't care that strongly since I won't be writing it. :P

-Jonathan

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Sandeep Tata <sandeep.tata@gmail.com> wrote:
> Won't things like multi-table support break binary compatibility anyway?
>
> We might be stuck with having to write a tool that migrates from a 0.3
> format to a 0.4 format.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Jonathan Ellis <jbellis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The fix for 208 [1] is fairly invasive.  should we
>>
>> (a) release another RC and do more testing before 0.3 final, or
>> (b) release 0.3 without these changes, and only add this fix to trunk?
>>
>> Although I see the 0.3 release primarily as a means to let people
>> start playing with the cassandra data model, I don't know that I want
>> to release it knowing that 0.4 is going to be binary-incompatible with
>> the 0.3 data files.  So I'd be inclined towards (a).
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-208
>>
>> -Jonathan
>>
>

Mime
View raw message