Thanks, all!

I've reviewed the current state of the KIP, and I'm still +1 (binding).

Thanks,
-John

On Fri, Sep 2, 2022, at 12:03, Chris Egerton wrote:
> +1 (binding). Thanks Jorge, great stuff!
>
> We should probably verify with the people that have already cast +1 votes
> that they're still on board, since the design has shifted a bit since the
> last vote was casted.
>
> On 2022/06/28 20:42:14 Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'd like to bump this vote thread. Currently it's missing 1 +1 binding
> vote
>> to pass (2 +1 binding, 1 +1 non-binding).
>>
>> There has been additional discussions to consider array access and
>> deep-scan (similar to JsonPath) but hasn't been included as part of this
>> KIP.
>> The only minor change since the previous votes has been the change of
>> configuration name: from `field.style` to `field.syntax.version`.
>>
>> KIP:
>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-821%3A+Connect+Transforms+support+for+nested+structures
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jorge.
>>
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 00:01, Bill Bejeck <bb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks for the KIP, Jorge.
>> >
>> > This looks like a great addition to Kafka Connect.
>> >
>> > +1(binding)
>> >
>> > -Bill
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 6:41 PM John Roesler <vv...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thanks for the KIP, Jorge!
>> > >
>> > > I’ve just looked over the KIP, and it looks good to me.
>> > >
>> > > I’m +1 (binding)
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > John
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022, at 09:10, Chris Egerton wrote:
>> > > > This is a worthwhile addition to the SMTs that ship out of the box
> with
>> > > > Kafka Connect. +1 non-binding
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022, 09:51 Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya <
>> > > > quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Hi all,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I'd like to start a vote on KIP-821:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-821%3A+Connect+Transforms+support+for+nested+structures
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks,
>> > > >> Jorge
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>

Reply via email to