Rivers removal. #11568
Merged
Rivers removal. #11568
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
While we had initially planned to keep rivers around in 2.0 to ease migration, keeping support for rivers is challenging as it conflicts with other important changes that we want to bring to 2.0 like synchronous dynamic mappings updates. Nothing impossible to fix, but it would increase the complexity of how we deal with dynamic mappings updates and manage rivers, while handling dynamic mappings updates correctly is important for resiliency and rivers are on the go. So removing rivers in 2.0 may well be a better trade-off.
|
LGTM |
This was referenced Jun 10, 2015
|
w00t! :) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
While we had initially planned to keep rivers around in 2.0 to ease migration,
keeping support for rivers is challenging as it conflicts with other important
changes that we want to bring to 2.0 like synchronous dynamic mappings updates.
Nothing impossible to fix, but it would increase the complexity of how we
deal with dynamic mappings updates and manage rivers, while handling dynamic
mappings updates correctly is important for resiliency and rivers are on the go.
So removing rivers in 2.0 may well be a better trade-off.