shibd commented on issue #20862: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/20862#issuecomment-1652025382
Hi, @michaeljmarshall. Thanks for your explanation. I got it. > A similar feature did not need a PIP https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20116. I think this feature is small enough that it does not need a PIP. In your opinion, why should this require a PIP? Thanks. I see new configurations introduced in this PR: `merge_secrets_into_config_map`. According to the [PIP rules](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/d131027e209f0a2e05cfb7ce353dbfd9bc9db53d/pip/README.md#L34), we need to initiate a PIP discussion. Also, I do want to discuss the configuration. Maybe we can merge `secrets` into `config map` by default. There are no compatibility issues here. 1. If the user only configures the password in `--input-specs` , we will not override it, which is compatible. 2. If the user only configures the password in `--secrets` , we should merge `secrets` into `config map` by default, This doesn't break any compatibility, it's more like fixing a bug. 3. If the user has configured a password in both `--input-specs` and `--secrets`. - Point 1: We won't overwrite it, as you did in your PR, print the WARN log. - Point 2: We should use `secrets` to override it. This should be in line with user expectations, not break compatibility. (This is more like fixing the current bug). What do you think? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
