Thanks for your clarification Yang! We're on the same page. Best, tison.
Yang Wang <danrtsey...@gmail.com> 于2020年2月25日周二 下午10:07写道： > Hi tison, > > I do not mean to keep two decorator at the same. Since the two decorators > are > not api compatible, it is meaningless. I am just thinking how to organize > the > commits/PRs to make the review easier. The reviewers may need some context > to get the point. > > > > Best, > Yang > > tison <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2020年2月25日周二 下午8:23写道： > >> The process in my mind is somehow like this commit[1] which belongs to >> this pr[2] >> that we firstly introduce the new implementation and then replace it with >> the original >> one. The difference is that these two versions of decorators are not api >> compatible >> while adding a switch for such an internal abstraction or extracting a >> clumsy >> "common" interface doesn't benefit. >> >> Best, >> tison. >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/apache/flink/commit/1f2969357c441e24b71daef83d21563da9a93bb4 >> [2] https://github.com/apache/flink/pull/9832 >> >> >> >> >> tison <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2020年2月25日周二 下午8:08写道： >> >>> I agree for separating commits we can have multiple commits that firstly >>> add the new parameters >>> and decorators, and later replace current decorators with new >>> decorators which are well >>> unit tested. >>> >>> However, it makes no sense we have two codepaths from FlinkKubeClient to >>> decorators >>> since these two version of decorators are not api compatible and there >>> is no reason we keep both >>> of them. >>> >>> Best, >>> tison. >>> >>> >>> Yang Wang <danrtsey...@gmail.com> 于2020年2月25日周二 下午7:50写道： >>> >>>> I think if we could, splitting into as many PRs as possible is good. >>>> Maybe we could >>>> introduce the new designed decorators and parameter parser first, and >>>> leave the existing >>>> decorators as legacy. Once all the new decorators is ready and well >>>> tested, we could >>>> remove the legacy codes and use the new decorators in the kube client >>>> implementation. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Yang >>>> >>>> Canbin Zheng <felixzhen...@gmail.com> 于2020年2月25日周二 下午6:16写道： >>>> >>>>> Hi, Till, >>>>> >>>>> Great thanks for your advice, I totally agree with you to split the >>>>> changes up in as many PRs as possible. The part of "Parameter Parser" is >>>>> trivial so that we prefer to make one PR to avoid adapting a lot of pieces >>>>> of code that would be deleted immediately with the following decorator >>>>> refactoring PR. Actually I won't insist on one PR, could it be possible >>>>> that I first try out with one PR and let the committers help assess >>>>> whether >>>>> it is necessary to split the changes into several PRs? Kindly expect to >>>>> see your reply. >>>>> >>>>
