Ah, do you mind wording it for me, Ismael? Or do you mean I should just remove the "MM1 is still useful" part?
Ryanne On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 11:01 AM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Can we please add proper motivation? I'm -1 with the current motivation > even though I'm in favor of the change. > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 8:46 AM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hey y'all, looks like we've got the requisite votes for this to pass, and > > the various concerns wrt KIP-712 are now being discussed on that thread. > So > > I'm going to go ahead and close the vote here. > > > > Thanks for the votes! > > > > Ryanne > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 11:26 PM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > It does mean more than that. We don't remove or replace things in > Apache > > > Kafka without good reasons (since it's typically costly for users). And > > > once something is scheduled for removal, it's typically in maintenance > > mode > > > and only bug fixes are expected. > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 8:28 PM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Ismael, "deprecated" implies something is scheduled to be removed or > > > > replaced, but I don't think it implies anything more than that. > KIP-720 > > > is > > > > proposing to deprecate MM1 so it can eventually be removed. That's > all > > > this > > > > particular KIP is proposing. > > > > > > > > Ryanne > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 7:24 PM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks Tom, this is a good elaboration on what I meant. Also, if > it's > > > > > deprecated, then we should definitely not be adding features. I'm a > > > > puzzled > > > > > that we are saying that MM1 is useful, deserves additional > > development > > > > and > > > > > should be deprecated - all at the same time. > > > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 9:20 AM Tom Bentley <tbent...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ryanne, > > > > > > > > > > > > With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it > because > > > we > > > > > > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet" and > "it's > > > > > > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case > properly". > > > > While > > > > > > the former is not a good reason to argue against deprecation, the > > > > latter > > > > > > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely clear to > me > > > > > whether > > > > > > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as MM1. > On > > > the > > > > > one > > > > > > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're > saying > > we > > > > > have > > > > > > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use cases > > would > > > be > > > > > > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I think. > > OTOH > > > > the > > > > > > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused about > which > > > the > > > > > > situation is. > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2 cannot > > replace? > > > > If > > > > > > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're > intentionally > > > > doing > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan < > > ryannedo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue for > > > > > deprecation > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's important > for > > > xyz" > > > > > -- > > > > > > so > > > > > > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses. The > > > > motivation > > > > > > for > > > > > > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't much > > else > > > to > > > > > > say, > > > > > > > IMO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryanne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include > > proper > > > > > > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker remains > > > useful, > > > > > we > > > > > > > want > > > > > > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to > > officially > > > > > > > deprecate > > > > > > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's no > > > longer > > > > > > > useful > > > > > > > > instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan < > > > > ryannedo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes > > to > > > > > > > deprecate > > > > > > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > Ryanne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
