Hi Chris, Thanks for the update. This looks to be a minor change and is also useful for backward compatibility. I added it to the release plan as an exceptional case.
~Satish. On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 at 21:34, Chris Egerton <chr...@aiven.io.invalid> wrote: > > Hi Satish, > > Would it be possible to include KIP-949 ( > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-949%3A+Add+flag+to+enable+the+usage+of+topic+separator+in+MM2+DefaultReplicationPolicy) > in the 3.6.0 release? It passed voting yesterday, and is a very small, > low-risk change that we'd like to put out as soon as possible in order to > patch an accidental break in backwards compatibility caused a few versions > ago. > > Best, > > Chris > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 2:35 AM Satish Duggana <satish.dugg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > Whoever has KIP entries in the 3.6.0 release plan. Please update it > > with the latest status by tomorrow(end of the day 29th Jul UTC ). > > > > Thanks > > Satish. > > > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 at 12:01, Satish Duggana <satish.dugg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Ismael and Divij for the suggestions. > > > > > > One way was to follow the earlier guidelines that we set for any early > > > access release. It looks Ismael already mentioned the example of > > > KRaft. > > > > > > KIP-405 mentions upgrade/downgrade and limitations sections. We can > > > clarify that in the release notes for users on how this feature can be > > > used for early access. > > > > > > Divij, We do not want users to enable this feature on production > > > environments in early access release. Let us work together on the > > > followups Ismael suggested. > > > > > > ~Satish. > > > > > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 at 02:24, Divij Vaidya <divijvaidy...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Those are great suggestions, thank you. We will continue this > > discussion > > > > forward in a separate KIP for release plan for Tiered Storage. > > > > > > > > On Thu 27. Jul 2023 at 21:46, Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Divij, > > > > > > > > > > I think the points you bring up for discussion are all good. My main > > > > > feedback is that they should be discussed in the context of KIPs vs > > the > > > > > release template. That's why we have a backwards compatibility > > section for > > > > > every KIP, it's precisely to ensure we think carefully about some of > > the > > > > > points you're bringing up. When it comes to defining the meaning of > > early > > > > > access, we have two options: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Have a KIP specifically for tiered storage. > > > > > 2. Have a KIP to define general guidelines for what early access > > means. > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 6:38 PM Divij Vaidya < > > divijvaidy...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the response, Ismael. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Specifically in context of 3.6, I wanted this compatibility > > > > > > guarantee point to encourage a discussion on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-952%3A+Regenerate+segment-aligned+producer+snapshots+when+upgrading+to+a+Kafka+version+supporting+Tiered+Storage > > > > > > . > > > > > > Due to lack of producer snapshots in <2.8 versions, a customer may > > not > > > > > > be able to upgrade to 3.6 and use TS on a topic which was created > > when > > > > > > the cluster was on <2.8 version (see motivation for details). We > > can > > > > > > discuss and agree that it does not break compatibility, which is > > fine. > > > > > > But I want to ensure that we have a discussion soon on this to > > reach a > > > > > > conclusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I will start a KIP on this for further discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. In the context of 3.6, this would mean that there should be > > > > > > no-regression, if a user does "not" turn-on remote storage (early > > > > > > access feature) at a cluster level. We have some known cases (such > > as > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-15189) which violate > > this > > > > > > compatibility requirement. Having this guarantee mentioned in the > > > > > > release plan will ensure that we are all in agreement with which > > cases > > > > > > are truly blockers and which aren't. > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Fair, instead of a general goal, let me put it specifically in > > the > > > > > > context of 3.6. Let me know if this is not the right forum for this > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > Once a user "turns on" tiered storage (TS) at a cluster level, I am > > > > > > proposing that they should have the ability to turn it off as well > > at > > > > > > a cluster level. Since this is a topic level feature, folks may not > > > > > > spin up a separate cluster to try this feature, hence, we need to > > > > > > ensure that we provide them with the ability to try tiered storage > > for > > > > > > a topic which could be deleted and featured turned-off, so that > > rest > > > > > > of the production cases are not impacted. > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. Agree on not making public interface change as a requirement > > but we > > > > > > should define what "early access" means in that case. Users may > > not be > > > > > > aware that "early access" public APIs may change (unless I am > > missing > > > > > > some documentation somewhere completely, in which case I apologize > > for > > > > > > bringing this naive point). > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Divij Vaidya > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 2:27 PM Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Divij, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of these are launch checklist items (not really goals) and > > some > > > > > are > > > > > > > compatibility guarantees. More below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 12:10 PM Divij Vaidya < > > divijvaidy...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Satish > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could we consider adding "launch goals" in the release plan. > > While > > > > > > > > some of these may be implicit, it would be nice to list them > > down in > > > > > > > > the release plan. For this release, our launch requirements > > would be: > > > > > > > > 1. Users should be able to upgrade from any prior Kafka > > version to > > > > > this > > > > > > > > version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is part of the compatibility guarantees. The upgrade notes > > mention > > > > > > > this already. If there is a change in a given release, it should > > > > > > definitely > > > > > > > be highlighted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. On release, this version (or it's dependencies) would not > > have any > > > > > > > > known MEDIUM/HIGH CVE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a new policy and the details should be discussed. In > > > > > particular, > > > > > > > the threshold (medium or high). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Presence of any "early access"/"beta" feature should not > > impact > > > > > > > > other production features when it is not enabled. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a general guideline for early access features and not > > specific > > > > > to > > > > > > > this release. It would be good to have a page that talks about > > these > > > > > > things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. Once enabled, users should have an option to disable any > > "early > > > > > > > > access"/"beta" feature and resume normal production features, > > i.e. > > > > > > > > impact of beta features should be reversible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This needs discussion and I don't think it's reasonable as a > > general > > > > > > rule. > > > > > > > For example, Kraft early access wasn't reversible and it was not > > > > > feasible > > > > > > > for it to be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. KIP-405 will be available in "early access"/"beta" mode. Early > > > > > > > > access/beta means that the public facing interfaces won't > > change in > > > > > > > > future but the implementation is not recommended to be used in > > > > > > > > production. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it's ok to make this a requirement. Early access > > is a way > > > > > > to > > > > > > > get early feedback and all types of changes should be on the > > table. > > > > > They > > > > > > > would be discussed via KIPs as usual. I believe there were some > > > > > > > incompatible changes for Kraft during the early access period > > although > > > > > > the > > > > > > > team aimed to minimize work required during upgrades. I have > > mentioned > > > > > > > Kraft a couple of times since it's a good example of a large > > feature > > > > > that > > > > > > > went through this process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Divij Vaidya > >
