)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":8726,"name":"Victor Morales","email":"chipahuac@hotmail.com","username":"electrocucaracha"},"change_message_id":"3d051f5793fceef3d23a995427bd4c18ba69965b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Deprecate send_arp_for_ha option"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"It puzzles me why we would want to have it configurable. Having it \u003d 0"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"is just plain bad (it breaks a floating IP roaming around HA routers),"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"having it \u003d 1 may be unsafe if clients miss the update, having it more"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"than 3 (the default) is probably wasteful. That makes me think that"},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"maybe we should not have it in the first place."},{"line_number":14,"context_line":""},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"The patch that introduced the option also introduced the feature itself,"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"and does not provide any clue around why we would need it:"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"9a629dbe_178d7531","line":13,"range":{"start_line":9,"start_character":0,"end_line":13,"end_character":47},"updated":"2016-11-07 19:22:46.000000000","message":"What about for the case to setup to 2? it\u0027s an option but not sure if it\u0027s valid.","commit_id":"790d030fb3e156cdd70def083e4f887c08f77836"},{"author":{"_account_id":8873,"name":"Assaf Muller","email":"amuller@redhat.com","username":"amuller"},"change_message_id":"b6cff9d683b3b3ec98a6d2b168014a5787ae57d6","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Deprecate send_arp_for_ha option"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"It puzzles me why we would want to have it configurable. Having it \u003d 0"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"is just plain bad (it breaks a floating IP roaming around HA routers),"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"having it \u003d 1 may be unsafe if clients miss the update, having it more"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"than 3 (the default) is probably wasteful. That makes me think that"},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"maybe we should not have it in the first place."},{"line_number":14,"context_line":""},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"The patch that introduced the option also introduced the feature itself,"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"and does not provide any clue around why we would need it:"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"9a629dbe_d3f6b0d6","line":13,"range":{"start_line":9,"start_character":0,"end_line":13,"end_character":47},"in_reply_to":"9a629dbe_178d7531","updated":"2016-11-07 19:51:06.000000000","message":"It\u0027s configurable. Users can set it to 2, 3, 4, 5 or any value. That\u0027s not a good reason on its own to keep it.\n\nAs Ihar said, the patch that introduced it did not give a reason as to why. I\u0027ve seen plenty of patches submitted that added configuration options that were not lead by user-driven use cases, but by us as a developer community having no idea how the code we\u0027re writing is intended to be used. So, instead of finding out, we make it (Whatever it is) usable in a multitude of ways, be it the API, configuration options or whatnot.\n\nInstead of crafting a user experience for known use cases we throw in \"just in case\" options and thus shift the responsibility away from us. It creates a confusing mess of an experience that takes deployment tools or hard learned lessons to decipher. I\u0027ve been happily -1\u0027ing patches that add new options if it\u0027s clear the author doesn\u0027t understand why he or she is doing what they\u0027re doing, and I think that this patch is similarly a step in the right direction.","commit_id":"790d030fb3e156cdd70def083e4f887c08f77836"},{"author":{"_account_id":8726,"name":"Victor Morales","email":"chipahuac@hotmail.com","username":"electrocucaracha"},"change_message_id":"febdc9188763668bb9f147778aea37ebf584b48b","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"Deprecate send_arp_for_ha option"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"It puzzles me why we would want to have it configurable. Having it \u003d 0"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"is just plain bad (it breaks a floating IP roaming around HA routers),"},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"having it \u003d 1 may be unsafe if clients miss the update, having it more"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":"than 3 (the default) is probably wasteful. That makes me think that"},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"maybe we should not have it in the first place."},{"line_number":14,"context_line":""},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"The patch that introduced the option also introduced the feature itself,"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"and does not provide any clue around why we would need it:"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"9a629dbe_083533f6","line":13,"range":{"start_line":9,"start_character":0,"end_line":13,"end_character":47},"in_reply_to":"9a629dbe_d3f6b0d6","updated":"2016-11-08 13:54:52.000000000","message":"Thanks Assaf for the explanation","commit_id":"790d030fb3e156cdd70def083e4f887c08f77836"}],"releasenotes/notes/deprecate-send_arp_for_ha-0281853632f58e8d.yaml":[{"author":{"_account_id":8873,"name":"Assaf Muller","email":"amuller@redhat.com","username":"amuller"},"change_message_id":"b6cff9d683b3b3ec98a6d2b168014a5787ae57d6","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":1,"context_line":"---"},{"line_number":2,"context_line":"deprecations:"},{"line_number":3,"context_line":"  - L3 agent send_arp_for_ha configuration option is deprecated and will be"},{"line_number":4,"context_line":"    removed in Pike."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-yaml","patch_set":1,"id":"9a629dbe_13f02890","line":3,"updated":"2016-11-07 19:51:06.000000000","message":"If I\u0027m reading this it\u0027s unclear if the functionality itself will be removed or if the functionality will remain but the tunable will go. I\u0027ll respin if you don\u0027t mind, feel free to change it further.","commit_id":"790d030fb3e156cdd70def083e4f887c08f77836"}]}