Hi, David, Thanks for the reply.
Historically, the format of all records were controlled by MV. Now, records in _offset_commit will be controlled by `group.coordinator.version`, is that right? It would be useful to document that. Also, we should align on the version numbering. "kafka-feature disable" says "Disable one or more feature flags. This is the same as downgrading the version to zero". So, in the `group.coordinator.version' case, we probably should use version 0 for the old consumer protocol. Jun On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 2:13 AM Andrew Schofield < andrew_schofield_j...@outlook.com> wrote: > Hi David, > I agree that we should use the same mechanism to gate KIP-932 once that > feature reaches production readiness. The precise details of the values > will > depend upon the current state of all these flags when that release comes. > > Thanks, > Andrew > > > On 28 Mar 2024, at 07:11, David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io.INVALID> > wrote: > > > > Hi, Jun, Justine, > > > > Regarding `group.coordinator.version`, the idea is to use it to gate > > records and APIs of the group coordinator. The first use case will be > > KIP-848. We will use version 2 of the flag to gate all the new records > and > > the new ConsumerGroupHeartbeat/Describe APIs present in AK 3.8. So > version > > 1 will be the only the old protocol and version 2 will be the currently > > implemented new protocol. I don't think that we have any dependency on > the > > metadata version at the moment. The changes are orthogonal. I think that > we > > could mention KIP-848 as the first usage of this flag in the KIP. I will > > also update KIP-848 to include it when this KIP is accepted. Another use > > case is the Queues KIP. I think that we should also use this new flag to > > gate it. > > > > Best, > > David > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 1:14 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid> > wrote: > > > >> Hi, Justine, > >> > >> Thanks for the reply. > >> > >> So, "dependencies" and "version-mapping" will be added to both > >> kafka-feature and kafka-storage? Could we document that in the tool > format > >> section? > >> > >> Jun > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 4:01 PM Justine Olshan > >> <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Ok. I can remove the info from the describe output. > >>> > >>> Dependencies is needed for the storage tool because we want to make > sure > >>> the desired versions we are setting will be valid. Version mapping > should > >>> be for both tools since we have --release-version for both tools. > >>> > >>> I was considering changing the IV strings, but I wasn't sure if there > >> would > >>> be some disagreement with the decision. Not sure if that breaks > >>> compatibility etc. Happy to hear everyone's thoughts. > >>> > >>> Justine > >>> > >>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 3:36 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, Justine, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for the reply. > >>>> > >>>> Having "kafka-feature dependencies" seems enough to me. We don't need > >> to > >>>> include the dependencies in the output of "kafka-feature describe". > >>>> > >>>> We only support "dependencies" in kafka-feature, not kafka-storage. We > >>>> probably should do the same for "version-mapping". > >>>> > >>>> bin/kafka-features.sh downgrade --feature metadata.version=16 > >>>> --transaction.protocol.version=2 > >>>> We need to add the --feature flag for the second feature, right? > >>>> > >>>> In "kafka-features.sh describe", we only show the IV string for > >>>> metadata.version. Should we also show the level number? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> Jun > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 1:52 PM Justine Olshan > >>>> <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I had already included this example > >>>>> bin/kafka-features.sh downgrade --feature metadata.version=16 > >>>>> --transaction.protocol.version=2 // Throws error if metadata version > >>> is < > >>>>> 16, and this would be an upgrade > >>>>> But I have updated the KIP to explicitly say the text you mentioned. > >>>>> > >>>>> Justine > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 1:41 PM José Armando García Sancio > >>>>> <jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Justine, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> See my comment below. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 1:31 PM Justine Olshan > >>>>>> <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>>> The feature command includes the upgrade or downgrade command > >> along > >>>>> with > >>>>>>> the --release-version flag. If some features are not moving in > >> the > >>>>>>> direction mentioned (upgrade or downgrade) the command will fail > >> -- > >>>>>> perhaps > >>>>>>> with an error of which features were going in the wrong > >> direction. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> How about updating the KIP to show and document this behavior? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> -José > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >
