+1 binding - long overdue On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 at 23:59, Ping Zhang <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Jarek, > > It makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. > > Thanks, > > Ping > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 12:23 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Are you planning to enforce this pattern when new parameters are >> introduced? >> >> It will be enforced semi-automatically. >> >> 1) If you are an existing user, new parameters will work out-of-the-box. >> Default values will be read from internal values, those new parameters will >> be either missing in the old config. User can add them there as needed. >> >> 2) For existing users when we renamed/move parameters, things will get >> slightly more complex but it will work as expected: >> >> * user will have the old value defined in their config file >> * we will detect it and raise deprecation warning >> * the user will have to delete /comment out the old config value and >> update their config to include their modified config value >> >> 3) For new users things will **just work** (TM) for the future. If they >> have not modified config values, they will stay "default". if they did, >> their custom values will be used. if we deprecate/rename - they will get >> warning and will have to move their custom values. No work needed for old >> values - if they were not modified/uncommented, they will continue being >> ignored. >> >> J. >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 7:48 PM Ping Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1, thanks Jarek. Are you planning to enforce this pattern when new >>> parameters are introduced? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ping >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 9:51 AM Jed Cunningham <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1, also been on my radar. Thanks Jarek. >>>> >>>
