-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.5k
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
Revert "feat(http-logger): support for specified the log formats via … #2307
Conversation
…admin API (apache#2294)" This reverts commit 89f89f3.
Not sure if that PR is needed, maybe there should ping @membphis. |
We can continue to discuss its necessity in the original PR |
@juzhiyuan @ShiningRush I think we should revert this PR first, then revert this revert if needed. |
sorry for missing them. I reply to you here.
the
That is not a good way. Like |
I have wrote the description for this PR. please take a look first. And I posted the use case. |
I got it, this is a feature for sharing data in the same type of plugin. I think it is useful for users. For example, a plugin needs to use the redis connection string, but I don’t want to configure it in each plugin.this function is very helpful at this time. |
@ShiningRush > I am also curious about what scenarios need metadata instead of plugin's option. Here is the answer: #2307 (comment) BTW, here is the old way to support the default value for log-rotate plugin: this way is not firendly:
but the |
have to say sorry for missing the comments. I submitted lots of commits when I was developing. As a result, I did not see your message on the PR :( . |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Got it, we could revert it first, once most of the members agree to accept it, we could do a re-revert.
that is the another PR which implemented the
this value only can be used in plugin |
I do not agree with it now. if we want to revert, we should to confirm the old PR is wong. |
We can concern a meaningful name, |
that is not a good idea, another reason: |
Revert this pr is not because of this feature, but because this operation will affect review. |
Revert that PR is not because THAT feature has something wrong, but just because there has some arguments about merging that PR, once most of the members accpet it, we could re-revert it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
revert it first. then I'll create a new PR soon
…admin API (#2294)"
This reverts commit 89f89f3.
The branch was merged without replying to the PMC member’s question #2294 (comment) #2294 (comment) , so I ask to revert this PR.
What this PR does / why we need it:
Pre-submission checklist: