Enough time has passed without anybody else stepping in so I think it is reasonable to go with behaviour of STRICTLY_NOT_NULL renamed as NOT_NULL and dropping the "weak" NOT_NULL as described in the original e-mail.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 9:44 AM guo Maxwell <cclive1...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it may be better to use LOOSE_NOT_NULL instead of NOT_NULL. > The reason is: NOT_NULL can easily make users think that it is a related > function of MYSQL, but in fact we are different. > Changing a different name may avoid users' preconceived feelings. > > Dinesh Joshi <djo...@apache.org> 于2025年2月11日周二 01:55写道： > >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 9:05 AM Bernardo Botella < >> conta...@bernardobotella.com> wrote: >> >>> We have consensus then. Let’s ditch the non strict version, and rename >>> the STRICTLY_NOT_NULL to NOT_NULL. >>> >> >> Can you give this thread at least 24-48 hours to ensure we capture any >> other perspectives? >> >
