Re: [DISCUSS] Does removing deprecated interfaces needs another FLIP
I would also agree with the above. Changing a stable API and deprecating stable methods would need a FLIP in my opinion. But then executing the removal of previously deprecated methods would be fine in my understanding. On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 11:17 AM Kurt Young wrote: > Thanks for the clarification, that make sense to me. > > Best, > Kurt > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 4:56 PM Timo Walther wrote: > > > Hi Kurt, > > > > I agree with Aljoscha. We don't need to introduce a big process or do > > voting but we should ensure that all stakeholders are notified and have > > a chance to raise doubts. > > > > Regards, > > Timo > > > > > > On 07.02.20 09:51, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > > > I would say a ML discussion or even a Jira issue is enough because > > > > > > a) the methods are already deprecated > > > b) the methods are @PublicEvolving, which I don't consider a super > > > strong guarantee to users (we still shouldn't remove them lightly, but > > > we can if we have to...) > > > > > > Best, > > > Aljoscha > > > > > > On 07.02.20 04:40, Kurt Young wrote: > > >> Hi dev, > > >> > > >> Currently I want to remove some already deprecated methods from > > >> TableEnvironment which annotated with @PublicEnvolving. And I also > > >> created > > >> a discussion thread [1] to both dev and user mailing lists to gather > > >> feedback on that. But I didn't find any matching rule in Flink bylaw > > >> [2] to > > >> follow. Since this is definitely a API breaking change, but we already > > >> voted for that back in the FLIP which deprecated these methods. > > >> > > >> I'm not sure about how to proceed for now. Looks like I have 2 > choices: > > >> > > >> 1. If no one raise any objections in discuss thread in like 72 hours, > I > > >> will create a jira to start working on it. > > >> 2. Since this is a API breaking change, I need to open another FLIP to > > >> tell > > >> that I want to remove these deprecated methods. This seems a little > > >> redundant with the first FLIP which deprecate the methods. > > >> > > >> What do you think? > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Kurt > > >> > > >> [1] > > >> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r98af66feb531ce9e6b94914e44391609cad857e16ea84db5357c1980%40%3Cdev.flink.apache.org%3E > > >> > > >> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Bylaws > > >> > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Does removing deprecated interfaces needs another FLIP
Thanks for the clarification, that make sense to me. Best, Kurt On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 4:56 PM Timo Walther wrote: > Hi Kurt, > > I agree with Aljoscha. We don't need to introduce a big process or do > voting but we should ensure that all stakeholders are notified and have > a chance to raise doubts. > > Regards, > Timo > > > On 07.02.20 09:51, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > > I would say a ML discussion or even a Jira issue is enough because > > > > a) the methods are already deprecated > > b) the methods are @PublicEvolving, which I don't consider a super > > strong guarantee to users (we still shouldn't remove them lightly, but > > we can if we have to...) > > > > Best, > > Aljoscha > > > > On 07.02.20 04:40, Kurt Young wrote: > >> Hi dev, > >> > >> Currently I want to remove some already deprecated methods from > >> TableEnvironment which annotated with @PublicEnvolving. And I also > >> created > >> a discussion thread [1] to both dev and user mailing lists to gather > >> feedback on that. But I didn't find any matching rule in Flink bylaw > >> [2] to > >> follow. Since this is definitely a API breaking change, but we already > >> voted for that back in the FLIP which deprecated these methods. > >> > >> I'm not sure about how to proceed for now. Looks like I have 2 choices: > >> > >> 1. If no one raise any objections in discuss thread in like 72 hours, I > >> will create a jira to start working on it. > >> 2. Since this is a API breaking change, I need to open another FLIP to > >> tell > >> that I want to remove these deprecated methods. This seems a little > >> redundant with the first FLIP which deprecate the methods. > >> > >> What do you think? > >> > >> Best, > >> Kurt > >> > >> [1] > >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r98af66feb531ce9e6b94914e44391609cad857e16ea84db5357c1980%40%3Cdev.flink.apache.org%3E > >> > >> [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Bylaws > >> > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Does removing deprecated interfaces needs another FLIP
Hi Kurt, I agree with Aljoscha. We don't need to introduce a big process or do voting but we should ensure that all stakeholders are notified and have a chance to raise doubts. Regards, Timo On 07.02.20 09:51, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: I would say a ML discussion or even a Jira issue is enough because a) the methods are already deprecated b) the methods are @PublicEvolving, which I don't consider a super strong guarantee to users (we still shouldn't remove them lightly, but we can if we have to...) Best, Aljoscha On 07.02.20 04:40, Kurt Young wrote: Hi dev, Currently I want to remove some already deprecated methods from TableEnvironment which annotated with @PublicEnvolving. And I also created a discussion thread [1] to both dev and user mailing lists to gather feedback on that. But I didn't find any matching rule in Flink bylaw [2] to follow. Since this is definitely a API breaking change, but we already voted for that back in the FLIP which deprecated these methods. I'm not sure about how to proceed for now. Looks like I have 2 choices: 1. If no one raise any objections in discuss thread in like 72 hours, I will create a jira to start working on it. 2. Since this is a API breaking change, I need to open another FLIP to tell that I want to remove these deprecated methods. This seems a little redundant with the first FLIP which deprecate the methods. What do you think? Best, Kurt [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r98af66feb531ce9e6b94914e44391609cad857e16ea84db5357c1980%40%3Cdev.flink.apache.org%3E [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Bylaws
Re: [DISCUSS] Does removing deprecated interfaces needs another FLIP
I would say a ML discussion or even a Jira issue is enough because a) the methods are already deprecated b) the methods are @PublicEvolving, which I don't consider a super strong guarantee to users (we still shouldn't remove them lightly, but we can if we have to...) Best, Aljoscha On 07.02.20 04:40, Kurt Young wrote: Hi dev, Currently I want to remove some already deprecated methods from TableEnvironment which annotated with @PublicEnvolving. And I also created a discussion thread [1] to both dev and user mailing lists to gather feedback on that. But I didn't find any matching rule in Flink bylaw [2] to follow. Since this is definitely a API breaking change, but we already voted for that back in the FLIP which deprecated these methods. I'm not sure about how to proceed for now. Looks like I have 2 choices: 1. If no one raise any objections in discuss thread in like 72 hours, I will create a jira to start working on it. 2. Since this is a API breaking change, I need to open another FLIP to tell that I want to remove these deprecated methods. This seems a little redundant with the first FLIP which deprecate the methods. What do you think? Best, Kurt [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r98af66feb531ce9e6b94914e44391609cad857e16ea84db5357c1980%40%3Cdev.flink.apache.org%3E [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Bylaws