Re: [VOTE] KIP-363: Make FunctionConversions private

Hi Joan, At the end of the day, I have to agree with Matthias. It seems a little silly to keep it around, but we did already release it as public. Maintenance is the penalty we have to pay for insufficiently scrutinizing the code we have released. Sorry you've gotten dragged into it. My

Re: [VOTE] KIP-363: Make FunctionConversions private

Why do we not deprecate the class? Seems like a breaking change to me -- at least technically. Are we 100% sure that nobody is using it and we don't break someone's application (I don't think we can ever be 100% sure). I would prefer to deprecate the class and make it private (ie, remove from

Re: [VOTE] KIP-363: Make FunctionConversions private

Yeah, let's go ahead and do that to minimize confusion and to stick to the formal process. Sorry for the run-around. Thanks, -John On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 11:27 AM Joan Goyeau wrote: > Ah ok I didn't know we need multiple binding vote. > Should I send again a new email with the updated

Re: [VOTE] KIP-363: Make FunctionConversions private

Ah ok I didn't know we need multiple binding vote. Should I send again a new email with the updated KIP-366 title? Thanks On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 21:14 John Roesler wrote: > Hey Joan, > > It looks like you've updated the KIP to "Accepted", but I only count one > binding vote (Guozhang). Ted,

Re: [VOTE] KIP-363: Make FunctionConversions private

Hey Joan, It looks like you've updated the KIP to "Accepted", but I only count one binding vote (Guozhang). Ted, Attila, Bill, and myself are all non-binding votes. For reference, these are all folks who hold binding votes: https://kafka.apache.org/committers . Obviously, they don't all take

Re: [VOTE] KIP-363: Make FunctionConversions private

John, no this is for internal use only. I fact I expect this object to go away with the drop of Scala 2.11 since in Scala 2.12 we have support for SAM. Thanks On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 at 15:41 John Roesler wrote: > Hey Joan, > > I was thinking more about this... Do any of the conversions in >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-363: Make FunctionConversions private

+1 -Bill On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:41 AM John Roesler wrote: > Hey Joan, > > I was thinking more about this... Do any of the conversions in > FunctionConversions convert to types that are used in the public Scala > interface? > > If you've already checked, then carry on. > > Otherwise, we

Re: [VOTE] KIP-363: Make FunctionConversions private

Hey Joan, I was thinking more about this... Do any of the conversions in FunctionConversions convert to types that are used in the public Scala interface? If you've already checked, then carry on. Otherwise, we should leave public any that might be in use. Thanks, -John On Sat, Aug 25, 2018

Re: [VOTE] KIP-363: Make FunctionConversions private

Thanks Attila, it's done. On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 at 02:57 Ted Yu wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:17 PM Attila Sasvári > wrote: > > > Hi there, > > > > There is a conflicting KIP with the same number, see > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-363: Make FunctionConversions private

+1 On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:17 PM Attila Sasvári wrote: > Hi there, > > There is a conflicting KIP with the same number, see > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-363%3A+Allow+performance+tools+to+print+final+results+to+output+file > > Its discussion was started earlier, on

Re: [VOTE] KIP-363: Make FunctionConversions private

Hi there, There is a conflicting KIP with the same number, see https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-363%3A+Allow+performance+tools+to+print+final+results+to+output+file Its discussion was started earlier, on August 23

Re: [VOTE] KIP-363: Make FunctionConversions private

+1 from me (binding). On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Joan Goyeau wrote: > Hi, > > As pointed out in this comment #5539 (comment) > "This > class was already defaulted to public visibility, and we can't retract it > now,