Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove deprecated API that uses non-inclusive terminology #5214

Open
tlfeng opened this issue Nov 11, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

Remove deprecated API that uses non-inclusive terminology #5214

tlfeng opened this issue Nov 11, 2022 · 1 comment
Labels
deprecate enhancement Enhancement or improvement to existing feature or request Meta Meta issue, not directly linked to a PR v3.0.0 Issues and PRs related to version 3.0.0

Comments

@tlfeng
Copy link
Collaborator

tlfeng commented Nov 11, 2022

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
All the REST API and Java that uses non-inclusive terminology master and blacklist/whitelist have been deprecated in version 2.0 - 2.2, and will be removed in version 3.0
This issue aims to track the effort of deprecated API removal that related to inclusive naming project.

REST API:

Cluster Settings:

  • cluster.initial_master_nodes
  • cluster.no_master_block
  • node.master

(done) Java API:

Additional context
A part of #2773 - List of deprecated code removal for v3.0
A part of #3351 - Breaking changes in 3.0

@tlfeng tlfeng added enhancement Enhancement or improvement to existing feature or request untriaged deprecate v3.0.0 Issues and PRs related to version 3.0.0 Meta Meta issue, not directly linked to a PR and removed untriaged labels Nov 11, 2022
@andrross
Copy link
Member

As of now, we have removed all usages of non-inclusive terms from the Java APIs. This has cleaned up almost all of the legacy cruft in terms of duplicate and/or deprecated code. What remains is the 3 cluster settings, a couple REST APIs, and one REST query parameter. While we have done most of the work to remove the non-inclusive terms, I'm proposing that we defer the removal of these last user-facing names until 4.0. I know clients can be the hardest thing to update, so the tradeoff to weigh here is the additional friction these removals might cause versus the cost of carrying these deprecations for one more major version. I think this is a case where it may be prudent to carry the deprecation for another major version just to be extra conservative.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
deprecate enhancement Enhancement or improvement to existing feature or request Meta Meta issue, not directly linked to a PR v3.0.0 Issues and PRs related to version 3.0.0
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants