Thanks Satish. I understand. Just curious, is this something that could be added to 3.6.1? It would be nice to say that hanging transactions are fully covered in a 3.6 release. I'm not as familiar with the rules around minor releases, but adding it there would give more time to ensure stability.
Thanks, Justine On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 5:49 AM Satish Duggana <satish.dugg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Justine, > We can skip this change into 3.6 now as it is not a blocker or > regression and it involves changes to the API implementation. Let us > plan to add the gap in the release notes as you mentioned. > > Thanks, > Satish. > > On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 04:44, Justine Olshan > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > Hey Satish, > > > > We just discovered a gap in KIP-890 part 1. We currently don't verify on > > txn offset commits, so it is still possible to have hanging transactions > on > > the consumer offsets partitions. > > I've opened a jira to wire the verification in that request. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-15449 > > > > This also isn't a regression, but it would be nice to have part 1 fully > > complete. I have opened a PR with the fix: > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/14370. > > > > I understand if there are concerns about last minute changes to this API > > and we can hold off if that makes the most sense. > > If we take that route, I think we should still keep verification for the > > data partitions since it still provides full protection there and > improves > > the transactions experience. We will need to call out the gap in the > > release notes for consumer offsets partitions > > > > Let me know what you think. > > Justine > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 12:29 PM David Arthur > > <david.art...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Another (small) ZK migration issue was identified. This one isn't a > > > regression (it has existed since 3.4), but I think it's reasonable to > > > include. It's a small configuration check that could potentially save > end > > > users from some headaches down the line. > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-15450 > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/14367 > > > > > > I think we can get this one committed to trunk today. > > > > > > -David > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 7:50 PM Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Satish, > > > > > > > > That sounds great. I think we should aim to only allow blockers > > > > (regressions, impactful security issues, etc.) on the 3.6 branch > until > > > > 3.6.0 is out. > > > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 9, 2023, 12:20 AM Satish Duggana < > satish.dugg...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Ismael, > > > > > It looks like we will publish RC0 by 14th Sep. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Satish. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Sept 2023 at 19:23, Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Satish, > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have a sense of when we'll publish RC0? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 6:27 AM David Arthur > > > > > > <david.art...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quick update on my two blockers: KAFKA-15435 is merged to > trunk and > > > > > > > cherry-picked to 3.6. I have a PR open for KAFKA-15441 and will > > > > > hopefully > > > > > > > get it merged today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 5:26 AM Ivan Yurchenko <i...@ivanyu.me> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Satish and all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14993 > > > > > should be > > > > > > > > included in the 3.6 release plan. I'm thinking that when > > > > > implemented, it > > > > > > > > would be a small, but still a change in the RSM contract: > throw > > > an > > > > > > > > exception instead of returning an empty InputStream. Maybe it > > > > should > > > > > be > > > > > > > > included right away to save the migration later? What do you > > > think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Ivan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2023, at 02:52, Satish Duggana wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Jose, > > > > > > > > > Thanks for looking into this issue and resolving it with a > > > quick > > > > > fix. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Satish. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 7 Sept 2023 at 21:40, José Armando García Sancio > > > > > > > > > <jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Satish, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 4:58 PM Satish Duggana < > > > > > > > > satish.dugg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > > > > It seems > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14273 > > > > has > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > > > > there in 3.5.x too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also agree that it should be a blocker for 3.6.0. It > should > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > been a blocker for those previous releases. I didn't fix > it > > > > > because, > > > > > > > > > > unfortunately, I wasn't aware of the issue and jira. > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a PR with a fix in case the original author > > > doesn't > > > > > > > > respond in time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Satish, do you agree? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > -José > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > -David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -David > > > >
