Why do we not deprecate the class? Seems like a breaking change to me -- at least technically. Are we 100% sure that nobody is using it and we don't break someone's application (I don't think we can ever be 100% sure).
I would prefer to deprecate the class and make it private (ie, remove from public API) in 3.0 release. Or do you see a mayor disadvantage in following this pattern that is usually applied? -Matthias On 8/31/18 12:27 PM, Joan Goyeau wrote: > Ah ok I didn't know we need multiple binding vote. > Should I send again a new email with the updated KIP-366 title? > > Thanks > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 21:14 John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > >> Hey Joan, >> >> It looks like you've updated the KIP to "Accepted", but I only count one >> binding vote (Guozhang). Ted, Attila, Bill, and myself are all non-binding >> votes. >> >> For reference, these are all folks who hold binding votes: >> https://kafka.apache.org/committers . Obviously, they don't all take note >> of every KIP, so we sometimes have to keep pinging the thread with >> reminders that we are waiting on binding votes. >> >> Also, people muddied the water by responding "+1" to this thread, but it's >> customary to start a new thread entitled "[VOTE] KIP-366: Make >> FunctionConversions private" to let people know when the voting has >> actually started. >> >> Thanks, >> -John >> >> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 3:44 PM Joan Goyeau <j...@goyeau.com> wrote: >> >>> John, no this is for internal use only. >>> I fact I expect this object to go away with the drop of Scala 2.11 since >> in >>> Scala 2.12 we have support for SAM. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 at 15:41 John Roesler <j...@confluent.io> wrote: >>> >>>> Hey Joan, >>>> >>>> I was thinking more about this... Do any of the conversions in >>>> FunctionConversions convert to types that are used in the public Scala >>>> interface? >>>> >>>> If you've already checked, then carry on. >>>> >>>> Otherwise, we should leave public any that might be in use. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -John >>>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 12:19 PM Joan Goyeau <j...@goyeau.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Attila, it's done. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 at 02:57 Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:17 PM Attila Sasvári < >> asasv...@apache.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi there, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is a conflicting KIP with the same number, see >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-363%3A+Allow+performance+tools+to+print+final+results+to+output+file >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Its discussion was started earlier, on August 23 >>>>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg91132.html >>> and >>>>> KIP >>>>>>> page already includes it: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please update KIP number to resolve the conflict. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apart from this, +1 (non-binding) and thanks for the KIP! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> - Attila >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> (időpont: 2018. aug. 24., P, >>>> 20:26) >>>>>> ezt >>>>>>> írta: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 from me (binding). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Joan Goyeau <j...@goyeau.com >>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As pointed out in this comment #5539 (comment) >>>>>>>>> < >>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/5539#discussion_r212380648 >>>>> >>>>>>> "This >>>>>>>>> class was already defaulted to public visibility, and we >> can't >>>>>> retract >>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> now, without a KIP.", the object FunctionConversions is only >> of >>>>>>> internal >>>>>>>>> use and therefore should be private to the lib only so that >> we >>>> can >>>>> do >>>>>>>>> changes without going through KIP like this one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please make your vote. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 at 19:14 John Roesler <j...@confluent.io >>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm also in favor of this. I don't think it's controversial >>>>> either. >>>>>>>>> Should >>>>>>>>>> we just move to a vote? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 7:01 PM Guozhang Wang < >>>>> wangg...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +1. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Ted Yu < >>>> yuzhih...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In the Motivation section, you can quote the comment >> from >>>>> pull >>>>>>>>> request >>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>>>> that reader doesn't have to click through. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:13 PM Joan Goyeau < >>>>> j...@goyeau.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As pointed out in this comment #5539 (comment) >>>>>>>>>>>>> < >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/5539#discussion_r212380648 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> object FunctionConversions is only of internal use >> and >>>>>>> therefore >>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>> private to the lib only so that we can do changes >>> without >>>>>> going >>>>>>>>>> through >>>>>>>>>>>> KIP >>>>>>>>>>>>> like this one. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> KIP: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-363%3A+Make+ >>>>>>>>>>>> FunctionConversions+private >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> -- Guozhang >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> -- Guozhang >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
