Hi PengHui, The current design is not to remove the old one directly, but deprecate it. We are still comptible with the old cluster in following way: - If a configuration is not the default configuration, use that configuration. - If both the new and the old are configured different from the default value, use the new one. So user upgrading to the new version without doing any change will not meet any problem.
Regards, Wenzhi Feng. On 2024/06/05 09:37:43 PengHui Li wrote: > Hi Wenzhi, > > Thanks for driving the proposal. > > The old configuration name should not be removed directly. > It might break users when they upgrade to the new cluster. > Instead, we can move it to the `Deprecated settings` section > and use `-1` as the default value. If the user sets it to a positive number, > we should use the old configuration to ensure compatibility. > > If the existing user wants to move to the new configuration name, they > should > set the old one to -1 or just delete it. > > Regards, > Penghui > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 11:15?6?2AM Kai Wang <kw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > +1 non-binding > > > > Thank you, > > Kai > > > > On 2024/06/05 02:32:51 thetumbled wrote: > > > Hi, Pulsar Community. > > > I would like to start the voting thread for PIP-357: Correct the conf > > name in load balance module. > > > Proposal PR: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22823 > > > Implementation PR: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22824 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Wenzhi Feng(thetumbled). > > ></kw...@apache.org>
