Thanks Chris for bringing this issue here and filing the new JIRA for 3.6.0[1]. It seems to be a blocker for 3.6.0.
Please help review https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/14314 as Chris requested. 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-15425 ~Satish. On Fri, 1 Sept 2023 at 03:59, Chris Egerton <chr...@aiven.io.invalid> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Quick update: I've filed a separate ticket, > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-15425, to track the behavior > change in Admin::listOffsets. For the full history of the ticket, it's > worth reading the comment thread on the old ticket at > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-12879. > > I've also published https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/14314 as a fairly > lightweight PR to revert the behavior of Admin::listOffsets without also > reverting the refactoring to use the internal admin driver API. Would > appreciate a review on that if anyone can spare the cycles. > > Cheers, > > Chris > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 1:01 PM Chris Egerton <chr...@aiven.io> wrote: > > > Hi Satish, > > > > Wanted to let you know that KAFKA-12879 ( > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-12879), a breaking change in > > Admin::listOffsets, has been reintroduced into the code base. Since we > > haven't yet published a release with this change (at least, not the more > > recent instance of it), I was hoping we could treat it as a blocker for > > 3.6.0. I'd also like to solicit the input of people familiar with the admin > > client to weigh in on the Jira ticket about whether we should continue to > > preserve the current behavior (if the consensus is that we should, I'm > > happy to file a fix). > > > > Please let me know if you agree that this qualifies as a blocker. I plan > > on publishing a potential fix sometime this week. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris > > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:19 AM Satish Duggana <satish.dugg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> Please plan to continue merging pull requests associated with any > >> outstanding minor features and stabilization changes to 3.6 branch > >> before September 3rd. Kindly update the KIP's implementation status in > >> the 3.6.0 release notes. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Satish. > >> > >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 21:37, Justine Olshan > >> <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >> > > >> > Hey Satish, > >> > Everything should be in 3.6, and I will update the release plan wiki. > >> > Thanks! > >> > > >> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 4:08 AM Satish Duggana < > >> satish.dugg...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi Justine, > >> > > Adding KIP-890 part-1 to 3.6.0 seems reasonable to me. This part looks > >> > > to be addressing a critical issue of consumers getting stuck. Please > >> > > update the release plan wiki and merge all the required changes to 3.6 > >> > > branch. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Satish. > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 22:19, Justine Olshan > >> > > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > Hey Satish, > >> > > > Does it make sense to include KIP-890 part 1? It prevents hanging > >> > > > transactions for older clients. (An optimization and stronger EOS > >> > > > guarantees will be included in part 2) > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > > Justine > >> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 3:29 AM Satish Duggana < > >> satish.dugg...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi, > >> > > > > 3.6 branch is created. Please make sure any PRs targeted for 3.6.0 > >> > > > > should be merged to 3.6 branch once those are merged to trunk. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > Satish. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 at 15:58, Satish Duggana < > >> satish.dugg...@gmail.com > >> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, > >> > > > > > Please plan to merge PRs(including the major features) targeted > >> for > >> > > > > > 3.6.0 by the end of Aug 20th UTC. Starting from August 21st, > >> any pull > >> > > > > > requests intended for the 3.6.0 release must include the changes > >> > > > > > merged into the 3.6 branch as mentioned in the release plan. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > > Satish. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 at 18:39, Chris Egerton > >> <chr...@aiven.io.invalid> > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks for adding KIP-949, Satish! > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 7:06 AM Satish Duggana < > >> > > > > satish.dugg...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi, > >> > > > > > > > Myself and Divij discussed and added the wiki for Kafka > >> > > TieredStorage > >> > > > > > > > Early Access Release[1]. If you have any comments or > >> feedback, > >> > > please > >> > > > > > > > feel free to share them. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 1. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Tiered+Storage+Early+Access+Release+Notes > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > > > > Satish. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 at 08:40, Satish Duggana < > >> > > > > satish.dugg...@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 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 > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > >
