Hello folks, I think we have reached a consensus, and we can now see if there are any other suggestions.
Best, TengYao Andrew Schofield <andrew_schofi...@live.com> 於 2024年8月5日 週一 下午10:46寫道: > Hi, > I’m happy to go with Chia-Ping’s position here. I’m just aware that this > option is already entirely broken. Either way, it’s a very small point and > it can > certainly remain until its final removal in AK 5.0. > > Thanks, > Andrew > > > On 5 Aug 2024, at 14:29, TengYao Chi <kiting...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Andrew, Chia-Ping > > > > Thanks for the suggestions. > > Personally, I also want to remove this in 4.0 since it is not a > significant > > function. > > But as Chia-Ping mentioned, we seem to have a ‘1-year rule’ (or > convention) > > for removing code, so I intend to follow the convention rather than being > > too aggressive. > > On the other hand, since this function doesn’t have much impact, maybe > > there’s a chance to ask Colin about his thoughts. > > What do you think? > > > > Best Regards, > > TengYao > > > > Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@gmail.com> 於 2024年8月5日 週一 下午7:24寫道: > > > >>> So, I am in favour of the KIP, but I suggest that it should actually be > >> removed in 4.0 > >>> rather than deprecated in 4.0 and then removed in 5.0 because it > already > >> doesn’t work. > >> > >> noted that removing it will introduce some broken behavior. For > >> example, the users who are using the config unintentionally will get > >> error "delete-config is not a recognized option" > >> > >> I'd like to delete it in 4.0, but we need to follow the depreciation > >> rules - remove it in major release and wait for 1-year > >> > >> There are some KIPs which don't wait for one year (see previous > >> discussion: > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/bwqrsk341h0op662t1qhz781ld41lo5b), > >> but we agree they are exceptions. > >> > >> If this KIP-1079 can be considered to be another exception, it must be > >> included by 3.9.0. However, we should not merge KIP-1079 into 3.9 > >> unless Colin agrees. > >> > >> In short, the config is not critical and we try to follow a "complete" > >> deprecation cycle. Hence, it should be deprecated in 4.0 and be > >> removed in 5.0 > >> > >> Best, > >> Chia-Ping > > >