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

(name to be decided) routing topology #411

Open
2 tasks
adamralph opened this issue Aug 8, 2017 · 3 comments
Open
2 tasks

(name to be decided) routing topology #411

adamralph opened this issue Aug 8, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@adamralph
Copy link
Member

adamralph commented Aug 8, 2017

Depends on #427.

The current default routing topologies (conventional and direct) have problems that could only solved by breaking wire compatibility. Rather than do that, we will deprecate the current routing topologies and introduce a new one which does not have those problems.

Plan of attack

  • Introduce new topology, and deprecate the conventional and direct routing topologies
  • Update docs, including upgrade guide
@adamralph adamralph added this to the 5.0.0 milestone Aug 8, 2017
@adamralph adamralph changed the title New (name to be decided) routing topology (name to be decided) routing topology and required topology choice Sep 1, 2017
@adamralph adamralph changed the title (name to be decided) routing topology and required topology choice (name to be decided) routing topology Sep 5, 2017
@adamralph adamralph removed the breaking label Sep 5, 2017
@adamralph
Copy link
Member Author

Requiring a topology choice has been split off into #427 which means this issue no longer requires a breaking change. It remains on the 5.0.0 milestone for now, but we have the option to deliver it in a later (minor) version instead.

@adamralph adamralph removed this from the 5.0.0 milestone Sep 12, 2017
@ramonsmits
Copy link
Member

What is this about? No info at all about this topology. What things are addressed. Is this info present somewhere?

@timbussmann
Copy link
Contributor

timbussmann commented Apr 12, 2021

Came here from #419 that seems to be an issue about obsoleting topologies that haven't even been replaced yet? Should we really keep #419 open and give users the impression those topologies are already obsolete?

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants