+1 (binding) Thanks, Yunze
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 6:25 PM thetumbled <wof...@qq.com.invalid> wrote: > > 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 AM 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>
