hi Kuan-Po
Q1:
in the "Kafka Connect:" section, the word "clients" should be replaced by
"connect", right?

Q2:
Additionally, could you add a brief description explaining why the bridge
version used by Connect is "3.8.x - 3.9.x"? This conflicts with the "API
compatibility" section.

Best,
Chia-Ping



Kuan Po Tseng <brandb...@apache.org> 於 2025年3月4日 週二 上午9:35寫道:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Thank you for the discussion. As we’ve previously mentioned, the
> deprecation rule would be better addressed in a separate KIP for greater
> visibility, allowing other developers to participate in that discussion.
> I’d like to keep KIP-1124 focused solely on the upgrade path without
> introducing additional concepts.
>
> Regarding Connect, I propose leaving it as it is. I’ve added a Connect
> section to the KIP, which is largely similar to the client section. The
> only notable difference is the bridge version range—since we’ve removed a
> deprecated API from 3.7, the appropriate bridge version from an API
> compatibility perspective should be [3.8.x–3.9.x].
>
> Best,
> Kuan-Po Tseng
>
> On 2025/03/04 00:44:47 Chia-Ping Tsai wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Thank you for the discussion. Apologies for introducing an unrelated
> topic. Here's a summary of that discussion.
> >
> > 1. A new KIP or thread will be created to define a formal deprecation
> policy. This policy will apply to releases following 4.0, as 4.0 does not
> fully conform to it.
> >
> > 2. We will not revert the 4.0 code. KIP-1124 focuses on client and
> streams APIs, and the removed Connect REST API is outside its scope.
> >
> > If there are no objections to KIP-1124, please cast your vote in the
> voting thread. Additionally, I propose adding a 'Client Upgrade Path'
> section to the 4.0 documentation to highlight KIP-1124 if it passes.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chia-Ping
> >
> >
> > > Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> 於 2025年3月4日 凌晨1:57 寫道:
> > > What Chia-Ping says.
> > >
> > > To me, if we remove it in 4.0, we did not really keep it for 1 year if
> deprecated in 3.7, but it's subject to debate. At least for KS, we always
> kept stuff of the last 3 releases.
> > >
> > > I agree, that KIP-1124 should focus on clients/streams, and we want to
> keep the code as-is for 4.0 release, and remove these API in Connect, I
> have no objections at all.
> > >
> > > Thus, the question is not really about KIP-1124 directly, but more
> about 4.0 release in particular.
> > >
> > > Seems the verdict is, to keep the code as-is for 4.0 and remove these
> Connect API with 4.0.0. Works for me.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Matthias
> > >
> > > On 3/3/25 9:02 AM, Chia-Ping Tsai wrote:
> > >>> So that's 3 releases (3.7, 3.8 and 3.9) and over 1 year, no?
> > >> KIP-1124 highlights "we keep deprecated APIs for at least 3 prior
> > >> versions," but the Connect API change does not follow this rule. It is
> > >> valid if the deprecation happens in 3.6.
> > >> Best,
> > >> Chia-Ping
> > >> Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> 於 2025年3月4日 週二 上午12:40寫道:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>> For the Connect REST API change, the deprecation is in 3.7.0 which
> > >>> released in February 2024. So that's 3 releases (3.7, 3.8 and 3.9)
> and
> > >>> over 1 year, no?
> > >>> Mickael
> > >>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 5:31 PM Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>> hi all,
> > >>>>> I am also happy to follow Ismael's proposal and say "at least 3
> > >>> releases
> > >>>> _and_ a minimum of 12 months".
> > >>>> +1 to this proposal
> > >>>>> Another example is
> > >>>
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/commit/a753172ad3e0927f412fb56e468c95a9a81ba3ad
> > >>>> We deprecated our log4j1 appender in 3.8.0 and it's been removed in
> > >>>> 4.0.0. Kafka 3.8.0 released in May 2024, so it's less than 1 year.
> > >>>> Yes, that's also an exception. Fortunately, this "breaking" change
> > >>> doesn't
> > >>>> affect the client, Streams, or Connect update path
> > >>>> I personally suggest creating a separate KIP to detail the new
> > >>> deprecation
> > >>>> rules (and create a new thread for this topic) . KIP-1124 only
> covers a
> > >>>> portion of deprecation issues, specifically API compatibility for
> > >>> clients,
> > >>>> Streams, and Connect. As Mickael mentioned, 4.0 cannot fully comply
> with
> > >>>> the new deprecation rules across the entire project. KIP-1124 should
> > >>> focus
> > >>>> on reaching consensus regarding the consistency we can achieve in
> 4.0.
> > >>>> Best,
> > >>>> Chia-Ping
> > >>>> Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> 於 2025年3月4日 週二 上午12:25寫道:
> > >>>>> Thanks Mickeal,
> > >>>>> I guess the question is, if we think we need to revert these
> removals,
> > >>>>> or if it's more reasonable to make an exception from the rule?
> > >>>>> I cannot really judge it, as I am not familiar with the details for
> > >>>>> Connect. Any suggestions from your side?
> > >>>>> -Matthias
> > >>>>> On 3/3/25 7:44 AM, Mickael Maison wrote:
> > >>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>> Another example is
> > >>>
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/commit/a753172ad3e0927f412fb56e468c95a9a81ba3ad
> > >>>>>> We deprecated our log4j1 appender in 3.8.0 and it's been removed
> in
> > >>>>>> 4.0.0. Kafka 3.8.0 released in May 2024, so it's less than 1 year.
> > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>> Mickael
> > >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 4:40 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>   From
> > >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Time+Based+Release+Plan
> > >>>>>>>> We break compatibility (i.e. remove deprecated public methods
> > >>> after a
> > >>>>> reasonable period, and typically wait 1 year after deprecation).
> > >>>>>>> To me, given that we do 3 releases per year, "1 year" as stated
> > >>> above
> > >>>>>>> and 3 releases, is just the same thing.
> > >>>>>>> I am also happy to follow Ismael's proposal and say "at least 3
> > >>> releases
> > >>>>>>> _and_ a minimum of 12 months".
> > >>>>>>> -Matthias
> > >>>>>>> On 3/3/25 6:48 AM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Hi Chia-Ping and Bruno,
> > >>>>>>>> Right. Matthias stated that the 3 releases rule is the source of
> > >>> truth
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> I don't recall that being the case. The source of truth is 12
> > >>> months -
> > >>>>> I
> > >>>>>>>> was one of the people who was part of that discussion when the
> > >>> Scala
> > >>>>>>>> consumer was removed. I also disagree that the 3 releases rule
> is
> > >>>>> strictly
> > >>>>>>>> better since we can sometimes have shorter release cycles (like
> the
> > >>>>> intent
> > >>>>>>>> with the 3.9 release). I am ok with adjusting the rule to be "at
> > >>> least
> > >>>>> 3
> > >>>>>>>> releases _and_ a minimum of 12 months" as part of this KIP, but
> we
> > >>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>> be clear that we're proposing a change as part of this KIP (vs
> > >>>>> following an
> > >>>>>>>> existing rule).
> > >>>>>>>> Ismael
> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 1:24 AM Bruno Cadonna <
> cado...@apache.org>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>> I suspect that the three-release-rule was a derivation from the
> > >>>>>>>>> 1-year-rule since we usually have three releases in one year.
> > >>>>>>>>> IMO, a three-release rule is easier to reason about, because
> you
> > >>> don't
> > >>>>>>>>> need to know when the release took place.
> > >>>>>>>>> However, I recognize that the 1-year-rule seems to be the
> official
> > >>>>> rule.
> > >>>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>>> Bruno
> > >>>>>>>>> On 03.03.25 09:58, Chia-Ping Tsai wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> hi Ismael
> > >>>>>>>>>> The thread[0] contains a brief discussion about the one-year
> > >>> rule.
> > >>>>> I've
> > >>>>>>>>>> also updated the KIP page[1] to highlight this rule. However,
> > >>>>> declaring
> > >>>>>>>>>> [3.7-3.9] as API compatible with 4.0 can be unrelated to the
> > >>> one-year
> > >>>>>>>>> rule.
> > >>>>>>>>>> We can do this for consistency, ensuring clients, Streams, and
> > >>>>> Connect
> > >>>>>>>>> have
> > >>>>>>>>>> the same version range. Additionally, we can address this by
> > >>>>> reverting a
> > >>>>>>>>>> minor commit. If we don't agree on consistency, we can update
> the
> > >>>>> KIP to
> > >>>>>>>>>> include different API compatibility versions for Connect.
> > >>>>>>>>>> [0]
> > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/j7n4qqsvxz84f5cg89kdm9foby36j28n
> > >>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=65867320&selectedPageVersions=9&selectedPageVersions=8
> > >>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>>>> Chia-Ping
> >
>

Reply via email to