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: Data model names, reloaded
Date Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:46:41 GMT
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Toby DiPasquale<codeslinger@gmail.com> wrote:
> That feels to me to be a short-sighted point of view. I'd imagine that
> its more important for people be able to understand the data model
> than meeting some kind of arbitrary timeline. I, too, find the current
> naming confusing and would love for this to be improved

I'm going to have to call bullshit on the idea that this is about
taking the time to get things right on the one hand and "meeting some
kind of arbitrary timeline" on the other.

Put that way, the choice is obvious!  Except of course that is not a
fair representation of the tradeoffs.

The release timeline isn't something arbitrary we pulled out of our
asses.  0.3 has serious issues that 0.4 fixes, including but not
limited to the API.  (The changelog was recently posted; I won't
repeat it here.)  Having an updated, stable 0.4 out there will be far
more valuable to the project than rearranging the deck chairs of
terminology.  Cassandra is fundamentally a different model than the
relational one everyone knows and loves.  That's the root of the
problem with understanding Cassandra: the concepts.  The labels you
attach to those, not so much.

Again, we've been clear about the direction and the timeline for 0.4.
This kind of proposal needed to happen a month ago.  It didn't.  That
may be a shame, but that's how it works, and trying to hold up
everyone else for your pet feature (without even patches! you'll
pardon me if the implication seems to be that you expect others to do
that part for you) is rude.  That's not how OSS should work.

-Jonathan

Mime
View raw message