> So that's 3 releases (3.7, 3.8 and 3.9) and over 1 year, no? KIP-1124 highlights "we keep deprecated APIs for at least 3 prior versions," but the Connect API change does not follow this rule. It is valid if the deprecation happens in 3.6.
Best, Chia-Ping Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> 於 2025年3月4日 週二 上午12:40寫道： > Hi, > > For the Connect REST API change, the deprecation is in 3.7.0 which > released in February 2024. So that's 3 releases (3.7, 3.8 and 3.9) and > over 1 year, no? > > Mickael > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 5:31 PM Chia-Ping Tsai <chia7...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > hi all, > > > > > I am also happy to follow Ismael's proposal and say "at least 3 > releases > > _and_ a minimum of 12 months". > > > > +1 to this proposal > > > > > Another example is > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/commit/a753172ad3e0927f412fb56e468c95a9a81ba3ad > > We deprecated our log4j1 appender in 3.8.0 and it's been removed in > > 4.0.0. Kafka 3.8.0 released in May 2024, so it's less than 1 year. > > > > Yes, that's also an exception. Fortunately, this "breaking" change > doesn't > > affect the client, Streams, or Connect update path > > > > I personally suggest creating a separate KIP to detail the new > deprecation > > rules (and create a new thread for this topic) . KIP-1124 only covers a > > portion of deprecation issues, specifically API compatibility for > clients, > > Streams, and Connect. As Mickael mentioned, 4.0 cannot fully comply with > > the new deprecation rules across the entire project. KIP-1124 should > focus > > on reaching consensus regarding the consistency we can achieve in 4.0. > > > > Best, > > Chia-Ping > > > > > > Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> 於 2025年3月4日 週二 上午12:25寫道： > > > > > Thanks Mickeal, > > > > > > I guess the question is, if we think we need to revert these removals, > > > or if it's more reasonable to make an exception from the rule? > > > > > > I cannot really judge it, as I am not familiar with the details for > > > Connect. Any suggestions from your side? > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > On 3/3/25 7:44 AM, Mickael Maison wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Another example is > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/commit/a753172ad3e0927f412fb56e468c95a9a81ba3ad > > > > We deprecated our log4j1 appender in 3.8.0 and it's been removed in > > > > 4.0.0. Kafka 3.8.0 released in May 2024, so it's less than 1 year. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mickael > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 4:40 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> From > > > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Time+Based+Release+Plan > > > >> > > > >>> We break compatibility (i.e. remove deprecated public methods > after a > > > reasonable period, and typically wait 1 year after deprecation). > > > >> > > > >> To me, given that we do 3 releases per year, "1 year" as stated > above > > > >> and 3 releases, is just the same thing. > > > >> > > > >> I am also happy to follow Ismael's proposal and say "at least 3 > releases > > > >> _and_ a minimum of 12 months". > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -Matthias > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 3/3/25 6:48 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > >>> Hi Chia-Ping and Bruno, > > > >>> > > > >>> Right. Matthias stated that the 3 releases rule is the source of > truth > > > and > > > >>> I don't recall that being the case. The source of truth is 12 > months - > > > I > > > >>> was one of the people who was part of that discussion when the > Scala > > > >>> consumer was removed. I also disagree that the 3 releases rule is > > > strictly > > > >>> better since we can sometimes have shorter release cycles (like the > > > intent > > > >>> with the 3.9 release). I am ok with adjusting the rule to be "at > least > > > 3 > > > >>> releases _and_ a minimum of 12 months" as part of this KIP, but we > > > should > > > >>> be clear that we're proposing a change as part of this KIP (vs > > > following an > > > >>> existing rule). > > > >>> > > > >>> Ismael > > > >>> > > > >>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 1:24 AM Bruno Cadonna <cado...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hi, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I suspect that the three-release-rule was a derivation from the > > > >>>> 1-year-rule since we usually have three releases in one year. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> IMO, a three-release rule is easier to reason about, because you > don't > > > >>>> need to know when the release took place. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> However, I recognize that the 1-year-rule seems to be the official > > > rule. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Best, > > > >>>> Bruno > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On 03.03.25 09:58, Chia-Ping Tsai wrote: > > > >>>>> hi Ismael > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The thread[0] contains a brief discussion about the one-year > rule. > > > I've > > > >>>>> also updated the KIP page[1] to highlight this rule. However, > > > declaring > > > >>>>> [3.7-3.9] as API compatible with 4.0 can be unrelated to the > one-year > > > >>>> rule. > > > >>>>> We can do this for consistency, ensuring clients, Streams, and > > > Connect > > > >>>> have > > > >>>>> the same version range. Additionally, we can address this by > > > reverting a > > > >>>>> minor commit. If we don't agree on consistency, we can update the > > > KIP to > > > >>>>> include different API compatibility versions for Connect. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> [0] > https://lists.apache.org/thread/j7n4qqsvxz84f5cg89kdm9foby36j28n > > > >>>>> [1] > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=65867320&selectedPageVersions=9&selectedPageVersions=8 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Best, > > > >>>>> Chia-Ping > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
