Thanks everyone for voting. The vote result is: +1: 5 (binding), 2 (non-binding) +0: 0 (binding), 0 (non-binding) -1: 0 (binding), 0 (non-binding)
I'll get the proposed spec change merged. On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 4:15 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <2am...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 for 409 > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 5:11 PM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: > >> +1 as well for 409 >> >> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:43 PM Ryan Blue <rdb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 for the updated 409 code. >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:41 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> +1. Thanks Eduard! >>>> >>>> Yufei >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 3:46 AM Eduard Tudenhöfner < >>>> etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have updated the spec to use 409 in order to indicate the >>>>> NamespaceNotEmptyException >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 7:12 PM Christian Thiel < >>>>> christian.t.b...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 (non-binding) for the updated 409 Code >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 at 18:30, Ryan Blue <rdb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> From the issue, it looks like we're using 400 for this because >>>>>>> that's what the Java client was returning as a generic or unhandled >>>>>>> error. >>>>>>> I don't think that's a good reason to standardize on 400 now that we are >>>>>>> calling out this error in the spec. Why not choose an error code that >>>>>>> distinguishes it from a bad request? I think that would be better so >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> we don't have to rely on checking other fields. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 9:00 AM Russell Spitzer < >>>>>>> russell.spit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:17 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 (non binding) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> JB >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 3:10 PM Eduard Tudenhöfner >>>>>>>>> <etudenhoef...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Hey everyone, >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > I'd like to hold a quick VOTE on #12518 that improves the >>>>>>>>> documentation around how NamespaceNotEmptyException is treated when a >>>>>>>>> non-empty namespace is deleted. >>>>>>>>> > In such a case we do return a 400 and we also return a 400 on a >>>>>>>>> bad request, thus the client should check the error type to know >>>>>>>>> whether it >>>>>>>>> received a NamespaceNotEmptyException. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > [ ] +1 Improve the documentation in the OpenAPI spec >>>>>>>>> > [ ] +0 >>>>>>>>> > [ ] -1 I have concerns because ... >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Kind regards, >>>>>>>>> > Eduard >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
