Hey all, As the release manager for 3.7.0, I am pretty interested to know if we should consider this a blocker.
Do we have clarity as to whether users could practically rely on this Go script? From a shallow look, it's only used in one line in the Dockerfile. I guess the downside is that images extending ours would have to ship with Golang. But in theory, once we remove it - it shouldn't be problematic unless they extended our image, rest on the assumption that Golang was present and used some other things in their own Dockerfile that relied on it? It sounds a bit minor. In the interest of the release, I would prefer we ship with this Go script in 3.7, and change it behind the scenes in the next release. Thoughts? On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:30 PM Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> wrote: > We should be very clear on what users can rely on when it comes to the > docker images (i.e. what are public interfaces) and what are implementation > details (and can be changed whenever we want). That's the only way to have > a maintainable system. Same way we make changes to internal classes even > though users can (and some do) rely on them. > > Ismael > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 10:55 AM Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > -- Best, Stanislav
