Skip to content

remove ravenblackx from deprecated cache ownership#40985

Merged
ravenblackx merged 3 commits intoenvoyproxy:mainfrom
ravenblackx:no_cache_ownership
Oct 6, 2025
Merged

remove ravenblackx from deprecated cache ownership#40985
ravenblackx merged 3 commits intoenvoyproxy:mainfrom
ravenblackx:no_cache_ownership

Conversation

@ravenblackx
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ravenblackx ravenblackx commented Sep 4, 2025

Commit Message: remove ravenblackx from deprecated cache ownership
Additional Description: With #41148 introducing a new cache filter implementation that expects to be maintained, it no longer makes sense to accept PRs touching the deprecated filter (other than to more firmly deprecate it or move it to contrib where it doesn't need a maintainer). Giving it the UNOWNED property is a gentle step towards making this clearer, and signifying my intent to not review any PRs that aim to "upkeep" the deprecated cache filter.

Signed-off-by: Raven Black <ravenblack@dropbox.com>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@adisuissa adisuissa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should the cache filter be moved to contrib?
cc @envoyproxy/envoy-maintainers

@ravenblackx
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

ravenblackx commented Sep 4, 2025

Should the cache filter be moved to contrib?

My understanding is contrib things still need to have a volunteer maintainer and owner or they get deleted, so I don't think the effort required to move it would be worth anything - an unmaintained non-contrib and an unmaintained contrib both are supposed to be on a track to deletion, so it might as well be on that track in-place.

(Unless what you're suggesting is that being in contrib would allow it to have a tainted API, and therefore would unblock #37990 - in that case that seems like a good option to me.)

@adisuissa
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

My understanding is contrib things still need to have a volunteer maintainer and owner or they get deleted, so I don't think the effort required to move it would be worth anything - an unmaintained non-contrib and an unmaintained contrib both are supposed to be on a track to deletion, so it might as well be on that track in-place.

I thought that contrib doesn't require an Envoy maintainer, but just a sponsor that uses the filter (https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/blob/main/EXTENSION_POLICY.md#contrib-extensions).
I'm not sure who is using this filter.

@ravenblackx
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I thought that contrib doesn't require an Envoy maintainer, but just a sponsor that uses the filter (https://github.com/envoyproxy/envoy/blob/main/EXTENSION_POLICY.md#contrib-extensions). I'm not sure who is using this filter.

Just different wording, I mean there's no sponsor either for this filter as far as I know, so it's not getting any more permitted by being moved into contrib. Unless the idea is that if it's moved into contrib it will be allowed to be implemented the way that works, in which case we use that version [currently as a gigantic patch], and I would be the sponsor.

@ravenblackx
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

(But to me it seems extremely bizarre for it to be okay to be like "okay anyone using the cache now has to change a bunch of stuff so that they're using a version that lives in contrib now" while at the same time saying it's not okay to at some point in the future deprecate a field from the config API because that might be disruptive.)

@ggreenway
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I think if the current cache filter is known to be too broken to really work, and there isn't a fix planned, it makes more sense to delete it than to move it to contrib.

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

github-actions bot commented Oct 6, 2025

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had activity in the last 30 days. It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs. Please feel free to give a status update now, ping for review, or re-open when it's ready. Thank you for your contributions!

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale stalebot believes this issue/PR has not been touched recently label Oct 6, 2025
Signed-off-by: Raven Black <ravenblack@dropbox.com>
Signed-off-by: Raven Black <ravenblack@dropbox.com>
@ravenblackx ravenblackx changed the title remove ravenblackx from cache ownership remove ravenblackx from deprecated cache ownership Oct 6, 2025
@ravenblackx ravenblackx assigned yanavlasov and unassigned adisuissa Oct 6, 2025
@ravenblackx
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

/retest

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the stale stalebot believes this issue/PR has not been touched recently label Oct 6, 2025
@ravenblackx ravenblackx merged commit 07fb381 into envoyproxy:main Oct 6, 2025
24 checks passed
@ravenblackx ravenblackx deleted the no_cache_ownership branch October 6, 2025 19:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants