On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 04:22:27PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > Since e9a54265f5 was not very clear about rdma migration code, should we > maybe rather add a separate deprecation note for the migration part, and add > a proper warning message to the migration code in case someone tries to use > it there, and then only remove the rdma migration code after two more > releases? Definitely a valid option to me. So far RDMA isn't covered in tests (actually same to COLO, and I wonder our position of COLO too in this case..), so unfortunately we don't even know when it'll break just like before. >From other activities that I can see when new code comes, maintaining RDMA code should be fairly manageable so far (and whoever will write new rdma codes in those two releases will also need to take the maintainer's role). We did it for those years, and we can keep that for two more releases. Hopefully that can ring a louder alarm to the current users with such warnings, so that people can either stick with old binaries, or invest developer/test resources to the community. Thanks, -- Peter Xu _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
