Hi, Yes changes have to be merged by a committer but for this kind of decisions it's best if it's seen by more than one.
> Hmm, is this a blocker? I don't see why. It would be nice to include it in > 3.7 and we have time, so I'm fine with that. Sure, it's not a blocker in the usual sense. But if we ship this Go binary it's possible users extending our images will start depending on it. Since we want to get rid of it, I'd prefer if we never shipped it. Thanks, Mickael On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 4:28 PM Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> wrote: > > Hi Mickael, > > A couple of comments inline. > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 3:34 AM Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > When you say, "we have opted to take a different approach", who is > > "we"? I think this decision should be made by the committers. > > > > Changes can only be merged by committers, so I think it's implicit that at > least one committer would have to agree. :) I think Vedarth was simply > saying that the group working on the KIP had a new proposal that addressed > all the goals in a better way than the original proposal. > > I marked the Jira (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-16016) > > as a blocker for 3.7 as I think we need to make this decision before > > releasing the docker images. > > > > Hmm, is this a blocker? I don't see why. It would be nice to include it in > 3.7 and we have time, so I'm fine with that. > > Ismael
