+1 overall, with two suggestions: 1. Deprecation and removal as a policy, not two RFCs. The deprecation RFC names the removal release (TEMPLATE.md:38 [1] already asks for it); the removal is an ordinary PR under that RFC, no new vote. API deprecated before this process is removed by ordinary review after a dev-list announcement, once it has been deprecated for at least one full minor release.
2. Compatible additions need a lighter path. Line 24 [2] sends a new metric or config option through the same vote as a protocol change. Kafka's KIP process [3] keeps configuration, monitoring and CLI "faster and looser": either part of the feature's RFC, or a dev-list announcement with lazy consensus. [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/13760/files#diff-50e226f08787a6b1a00cde3420baf4b97eec53887df6f3c121eb823d7c475639R38 [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/13760/files#diff-964c536dd887c02e46887244405c46d2d8b5e15dc7a4480eb3a33fb64844b15aR24 [3] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals On Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 5:25 PM Anton Vinogradov <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Following the feedback, I've split the original proposal into two PRs: > > - Public API, observable behavior, and compatibility contracts [1]. > - RFC development process [2]. > > Let's discuss the API definitions first, then the process. The original PR > [3] is now closed; please continue the discussion in the relevant new PR. > > Thanks, > Anton > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/13759 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-29219 > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/13760 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-29220 > [3] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/13740 > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2026 at 11:09 PM Anton Vinogradov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > Following our discussion, I've opened the first RFC [1] under IGNITE-29201 > > [2]. > > > > It defines what counts as a public API and how we review API, protocol, > > and storage changes through tickets and PRs, including approval from at > > least three Ignite committers. > > > > Please take a look and share your thoughts, especially on the scope and > > approval process. Comments in the PR are welcome; let's keep broader > > process questions on this list. > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/13740 > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-29201 > > > > Thanks, > > Anton > > -- Best wishes, Nikita Amelchev
