+1 （binding） On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 1:55 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah that makes sense, it is a good-to-have if we can push through this in > 2.5 but if we do not have bandwidth that's fine too :) > > Guozhang > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 1:40 PM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io> wrote: > >> Hi Guozhang, >> >> Thank you for your input. >> >> 1) You're right. I've put it there due to the version bump only. I'll make >> it clearer. >> >> 2) I'd rather prefer to keep the scope as it is because 1) that field is >> not related to >> the problem that we are solving here and 2) I am not sure that I will have >> the >> bandwidth to do this before the feature freeze. The PR is already ready. >> That being >> said, as the addition of that field is part of KIP-429 and KIP-429 has >> already been >> accepted, we could give it a shot to avoid having to bump the version >> twice. I could >> try putting together a PR before the feature freeze but without guarantee. >> Does that >> make sense? >> >> David >> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:44 AM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hello David, >> > >> > Thanks for the KIP! I have read through the proposal and had one minor >> and >> > one meta comment. But overall it looks good to me! >> > >> > 1) The JoinGroupRequest format does not have any new fields proposed, >> so we >> > could either clarify that it is listed here but without modifications >> (only >> > version bumps) or just remove it from the wiki. >> > >> > 2) Could we consider adding a "protocol version" to allow brokers to >> select >> > the leader with the highest version? This thought is brought up in >> > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-429%3A+Kafka+Consumer+Incremental+Rebalance+Protocol#KIP-429:KafkaConsumerIncrementalRebalanceProtocol-LookingintotheFuture:AssignorVersion >> > . >> > I'm fine with keeping this KIP's scope as is, just wondering if you feel >> > comfortable piggy-backing this change as well if we are going to bump up >> > the JoinGroupReq/Response anyways. >> > >> > >> > Guozhang >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:10 AM Eno Thereska <eno.there...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > This is awesome! +1 (non binding) >> > > Eno >> > > >> > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:00 PM Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Thank you for the KIP. Awesomely cloud-native improvement :) >> > > > >> > > > +1 (binding) >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 9:35 AM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi all, >> > > > > >> > > > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-559: Make the Kafka Protocol >> > > Friendlier >> > > > > with L7 Proxies. >> > > > > >> > > > > The KIP is here: >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-559%3A+Make+the+Kafka+Protocol+Friendlier+with+L7+Proxies >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > David >> > > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > -- Guozhang >> > >> > > > -- > -- Guozhang > -- -- Guozhang
