Hey all, For the KIP-500 work for 3.0 we would like to propose the following Jiras as blockers:
1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13168 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13165 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13161 The description for each Jira should have more details. Thanks, -Jose On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:14 PM Ryan Dielhenn <rdielh...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > Hi Konstantine, > > I would like to report another bug in KRaft. > > The ConfigHandler that processes dynamic broker config deltas in KRaft > expects that the default resource name for dynamic broker configs is the > old default entity name used in ZK: "<default>". Since dynamic default > broker configs are persisted as empty string in the quorum instead of > "<default>", the brokers are not updating the their default configuration > when they see empty string as a resource name in the config delta and are > throwing a NumberFormatException when they try to parse the resource name > to process it as a per-broker configuration. > > I filed a JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13160 > > I also have a PR to fix this: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11168 > > I think that this should be a blocker for 3.0 because dynamic default > broker configs will not be usable in KRaft otherwise. > > Best, > Ryan Dielhenn > > On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 10:42 AM Konstantine Karantasis < > kkaranta...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Thanks Ryan, > > > > Approved. Seems also like a low risk fix. > > With that opportunity, let's make sure there are no other configs that > > would need a similar validation. > > > > Konstantine > > > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 8:33 AM Ryan Dielhenn > > <rdielh...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Hey Konstantine, > > > > > > Thanks for the question. If these configs are not validated the user's > > > experience will be affected and upgrades from 3.0 will be harder. > > > > > > Best, > > > Ryan Dielhenn > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 3:59 PM Konstantine Karantasis < > > > kkaranta...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for reporting this issue Ryan. > > > > > > > > I believe what you mention corresponds to the ticket you created here: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/KAFKA/issues/KAFKA-13151 > > > > > > > > What happens if the configurations are present but the broker doesn't > > > fail > > > > at startup when configured to run in KRaft mode? > > > > Asking to see if we have any workarounds in our availability. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Konstantine > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:51 PM Ryan Dielhenn > > > > <rdielh...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Disregard log.clean.policy being included in this blocker. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Ryan Dielhenn > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:38 PM Ryan Dielhenn < > > rdielh...@confluent.io> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Konstantine, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to report another bug in KRaft. > > > > > > > > > > > > log.cleanup.policy, alter.config.policy.class.name, and > > > > > > create.topic.policy.class.name are all unsupported by KRaft but > > > KRaft > > > > > > servers allow them to be configured. I believe this should be > > > > considered > > > > > a > > > > > > blocker and that KRaft servers should fail startup if any of these > > > are > > > > > > configured. I do not have a PR yet but will soon. > > > > > > > > > > > > On another note, I have a PR for the dynamic broker configuration > > fix > > > > > > here: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11141 > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Ryan Dielhenn > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 2:48 PM Konstantine Karantasis > > > > > > <konstant...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi all, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Please find below the updated release plan for the Apache Kafka > > > 3.0.0 > > > > > >> release. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=177046466 > > > > > >> > > > > > >> New suggested dates for the release are as follows: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> KIP Freeze is 09 June 2021 (same date as in the initial plan) > > > > > >> Feature Freeze is 30 June 2021 (new date, extended by two weeks) > > > > > >> Code Freeze is 14 July 2021 (new date, extended by two weeks) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> At least two weeks of stabilization will follow Code Freeze. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> The release plan is up to date and currently includes all the > > > approved > > > > > >> KIPs > > > > > >> that are targeting 3.0.0. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Please let me know if you have any objections with the recent > > > > extension > > > > > of > > > > > >> Feature Freeze and Code Freeze or any other concerns. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Regards, > > > > > >> Konstantine > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- -Jose
