You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flink.apache.org by Kurt Young <yk...@gmail.com> on 2020/02/07 03:40:39 UTC
[DISCUSS] Does removing deprecated interfaces needs another FLIP
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
Posted by Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org>.
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 <yk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification, that make sense to me.
>
> Best,
> Kurt
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 4:56 PM Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org> 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
Posted by Kurt Young <yk...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the clarification, that make sense to me.
Best,
Kurt
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 4:56 PM Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org> 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
Posted by Timo Walther <tw...@apache.org>.
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
Posted by Aljoscha Krettek <al...@apache.org>.
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
>