I agree. It should have required the PIP. I have another question. Is there any document to describe these metrics? I think the metrics body should be documented well to avoid breaking changes. Some external applications might parse the metrics according to a specific structure.
Thanks, Yunze On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 11:38 AM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I would like to start a discussion about requiring a proposal for Admin > API/CLI > and metrics changes. > > Here are some recent examples that changed the Admin API but without > proposals. > I just checked the commit logs. Maybe some have a proposal. Just forgot to > add > the proposal link to the PR. > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18218 > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17153 > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/16167 > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14930 > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17337 > > And here are metrics-related proposals. But looks like we don't have a > clear rule > for this part (the proposal is required or not) > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18319 > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18560 > > As more and more users are using Pulsar in production. > But the Admin API changes and metrics changes have > not required a proposal. This may pose a risk to users. > The proposal will have better visibility, and voting is required. > > And actually, all the public API changes are proposals required. > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/wiki/proposals/PIP.md#when-is-a-pip-required > But in fact, this is not strictly enforced. > > Is it time to require a proposal for Admin API/CLI and metrics changes? > > Thanks, > Penghui
