Hi Aljoscha, I understand this might be troublesome at times, but I see benefit in having at least 3 +1s from committers on those. In the end config options are part of user facing API. In the end adapting config options is a commitment to support those options in the future. I think having a better exposure than we had so far could improve consistency of option keys between different modules.
On the other hand I understand that the requirement of having a voting period of 72 hours might be a substantial overhead in those cases. I was thinking if we can have a shorter FLIP cadence for such votes. To summarize my message, personally I prefer having a FLIP for those changes, but would be up for loosening formal requirements a bit. Best, Dawid On 15/10/2019 14:05, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > The title says it all, do you think we need to cover all config options that > we introduce/change by FLIPs? I was thinking about this because of the > FLIP-73 work, which will introduce some new config options and also because I > just spotted a PR [1] that introduces some config options. > > Best, > Aljoscha > > [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/9836
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
