I opened a PR to clean up some recent config changes: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/24027
Pulsar's configuration is like a trashbox, to which everyone throws trash without any consideration. Some configs are hard to understand without looking into the implementation details. The PIP requirement should prevent such things but it seems that very few contributors follow it. I raised my concern two years ago [1] but things are getting worse. IMHO, most configs do not have any value to exist. For these configs, no one knows when it should be changed and if the customized value could be better. AUthors tend to have no responsibility for the config added by them. They just think, "you should thank me for providing a config to control the behavior". They never stand from a perspective of users. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/j23ny19opmp8jww57gwk7g27b5dvl0ot Thanks, Yunze On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 2:33 PM WenZhi Feng <thetumb...@apache.org> wrote: > > Same confusion about the criterion of PIP. > > Wenzhi Feng. > > On 2025/02/26 04:42:27 Yunze Xu wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I noticed two PRs were merged recently and cherry-picked into > > branch-3.0 and branch-4.0, where 3.0 and 4.0 are LTS releases. > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/24012 fixes a bug for the > > implementation of PIP-322. However, it adds a new configuration > > without a new PIP or change on the existing PIP. It definitely > > violates "When is a PIP required" [1]. (Any change to the > > configuration) > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/23697 fixes a message loss issue > > caused by geo-replication by introducing a new feature flag > > `supports_repl_dedup_by_lid_and_eid`. It also violates [1] (Any new > > feature for Pulsar brokers or client) > > > > I also noticed https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/24025, which adds > > a new config `managedLedgerOffloadReadThreads` as well. Though it's > > only cherry-picked into branch-3.3 but not for LTS releases (3.0 and > > 4.0) > > > > I found the definition of "bug-fixes" ambiguous. It seems like a > > silver bullet that if we want a PR to be included in the LTS release, > > we only need to say, "it's a bug fix", no matter if it changes > > anything that requires a PIP. > > > > Based on the fact that the PIP rule is not widely followed, should we > > update and loose the requirement? > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/tree/master/pip#when-is-a-pip-required > > > > Thanks, > > Yunze > >
