Hey all, happy new year. Thanks for the heads up Almog. Makes sense.
To give an update - I haven't been able to resolve the gradlewAll publish failure, and as such haven't been able to release an RC. As a minor barrier, I have to also update the year in the NOTICE file, otherwise the release script won't let me continue - https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/15111 Me and Apoorv synced offline and ran a few tests to debug the issue regarding the clients build. I successfully executed `publish` when pointing toward a custom jfrog repo with both JDK 8 and 17. Inspecting the debug logs, the task that previously failed `:clients:publishMavenJavaPublicationToMavenRepository'` passed successfully. Here's a sample of the logs - https://gist.github.com/stanislavkozlovski/841060cb467ec1d179cc9f293c8702e7 Having read the release.py script a few times, I am not able to see what is different in the setup there. It simply clones the repo anew, gets the 3.7 branch and runs the same command. At this point, I am contemplating pushing a commit to 3.7 that modifies the release.py file that enables debug on the command: diff --git a/release.py b/release.py index 43c5809861..e299e10e74 100755 --- a/release.py +++ b/release.py @@ -675,7 +675,7 @@ with open(os.path.expanduser("~/.gradle/gradle.properties")) as f: contents = f.read() if not user_ok("Going to build and upload mvn artifacts based on these settings:\n" + contents + '\nOK (y/n)?: '): fail("Retry again later") -cmd("Building and uploading archives", "./gradlewAll publish", cwd=kafka_dir, env=jdk8_env, shell=True) +cmd("Building and uploading archives", "./gradlewAll publish --debug", cwd=kafka_dir, env=jdk8_env, shell=True) cmd("Building and uploading archives", "mvn deploy -Pgpg-signing", cwd=streams_quickstart_dir, env=jdk8_env, shell=True) release_notification_props = { 'release_version': release_version, (END) and continuing to debug through that. Since the release.py script grabs a new copy of origin, we have to modify upstream. An alternative is for me to use my local github Kafka repo, but that may result in the script pushing a build of that into the remote servers. On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 8:17 PM Almog Gavra <almog.ga...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Stan, > > I wanted to give you a heads up that > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/15073 ( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-16046) was identified as a > blocker regression and should be merged to trunk by EOD. > > Cheers, > Almog > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 4:20 AM Stanislav Kozlovski > <stanis...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > Hi Apoorv, > > > > Thanks for taking ownership and looking into this! One more caveat is > that > > I believe this first publish is ran with JDK 8, as the release.py runs > with > > both JDK 8 and (if I recall correctly) 17 versions. This seems to fail on > > the first one - so JDK 8. > > Not sure if that is related in any way. And I'm also not sure if it > should > > be kafka-clients or just clients. > > > > On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 10:48 AM Apoorv Mittal <apoorvmitta...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Stan, > > > Thanks for looking into the release. I worked with `./gradlewAll > > > publishToMavenLocal` which generates the respective `kafka-clients.jar` > > > and deploys to maven local, I believed that `./gradlewAll publish` > should > > > just publish the artifacts to remote repository and hence should always > > > work as jars successfully gets deployed to local maven. > > > > > > Though now I set up the remote private maven repository for myself (on > > > jfrog) and tried `./gradlewAll publish` on the 3.7 branch and > > > successfully completed the build with all artifacts uploaded to the > > remote > > > repository. What seems strange to me is the error you mentioned in the > > > previous email regarding the reference of the clients jar. I suppose > the > > > reference should be to `kafka-clients.jar` rather than `clients.jar`, I > > > might be missing if something else gets triggered in the release > > pipeline. > > > Do you think I should set up the remote repository as per the > > instructions > > > in `release.py` and try running `./release.py` as that might do > something > > > different, though I suspect that it should? > > > > > > [image: Screenshot 2023-12-30 at 9.33.42 AM.png] > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Apoorv Mittal > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 2:13 AM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > >> Just to update this thread, everything in KAFKA-14127 is done now. A > few > > >> tasks got moved to a separate umbrella JIRA. > > >> > > >> Some folks are going to do more testing, both manual and automated, in > > >> the next week or two. I think this will give us a good indicator of > > >> stability and what we need to fix. > > >> > > >> Right now I'm leaning towards just making it GA since that's how most > > >> features work. It's kind of rare for us to do a multi-step rollout for > > new > > >> features. > > >> > > >> best, > > >> Colin > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023, at 03:43, Mickael Maison wrote: > > >> > Hi, > > >> > > > >> > With the current timeline for 3.7, I tend to agree with Viktor that > > >> > JBOD support in KRaft is unlikely to receive the extensive testing > > >> > this feature needs before releasing. And that's not counting the > > >> > testing tasks left to do in > > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14127. > > >> > > > >> > I'm fine sticking to the current 3.7 timeline but I'd err on the > safe > > >> > side and mark JBOD as early access to avoid major issues. Kafka is > > >> > known for its robustness and resiliency and we certainly don't want > to > > >> > lose the trust we gained over years. > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Mickael > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 12:24 AM Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> > > wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> Hi Viktor, > > >> >> > > >> >> Extending the code freeze doesn't help stabilize things. If we have > > >> >> important bugs for JBOD, we should mark those as blockers and we'll > > >> wait > > >> >> until they are fixed if the fixes won't take too long (as usual). > > >> >> > > >> >> Ismael > > >> >> > > >> >> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 11:58 AM Viktor Somogyi-Vass > > >> >> <viktor.somo...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > Hi all, > > >> >> > > > >> >> > I was wondering what people think about extending the code freeze > > >> date to > > >> >> > early January? > > >> >> > The reason I'm asking is that there are still a couple of testing > > >> gaps in > > >> >> > JBOD (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14127) which I > > >> think is > > >> >> > very important to finish to ensure a high quality release (after > > all > > >> this > > >> >> > supposed to be the last 3.x) and secondly the year end holidays > for > > >> many > > >> >> > people are coming fast, which means we'll likely have less people > > >> working > > >> >> > on testing and validation. In my opinion it would strengthen the > > >> release if > > >> >> > we could spend a week in January to really finish off JBOD and > do a > > >> 2 week > > >> >> > stabilization. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > What do you all think? > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Best, > > >> >> > Viktor > > >> >> > > > >> >> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 2:59 PM Stanislav Kozlovski > > >> >> > <stanis...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Hey! > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Just notifying everybody on this thread that I have cut the 3.7 > > >> branch > > >> >> > and > > >> >> > > sent a new email thread titled "New Release Branch 3.7" to the > > >> mailing > > >> >> > list > > >> >> > > < > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/4j87m12fm3bgq01fgphtkfb41s56w6hh > > >> >. > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Best, > > >> >> > > Stanislav > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 11:10 AM Stanislav Kozlovski < > > >> >> > > stanis...@confluent.io> > > >> >> > > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Hello again, > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Time is flying by! It is feature freeze day! > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > By today, we expect to have major features merged and to > begin > > >> working > > >> >> > on > > >> >> > > > their stabilisation. Minor features should have PRs. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I am planning to cut the release branch soon - on Monday EU > > >> daytime. > > >> >> > When > > >> >> > > > I do that, I will create a new e-mail thread titled "New > > release > > >> branch > > >> >> > > > 3.7.0" to notify you, so be on the lookout for that. I will > > also > > >> notify > > >> >> > > > this thread. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Thank you for your contributions. Let's get this release > > shipped! > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Best, > > >> >> > > > Stanislav > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 6:11 PM Stanislav Kozlovski < > > >> >> > > > stanis...@confluent.io> wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >> Hey all, > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> The KIP Freeze has passed. I count 31 KIPs that will be > going > > >> into the > > >> >> > > >> 3.7 Release. Thank you all for your hard work! > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> They are the following (some of these were accepted in > > previous > > >> >> > releases > > >> >> > > >> and have minor parts going out, some targeting a Preview > > >> release and > > >> >> > the > > >> >> > > >> rest being fully released as regular.): > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-1000: List Client Metrics Configuration Resources > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-1001: Add CurrentControllerId Metric > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-405: Kafka Tiered Storage > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-580: Exponential Backoff for Kafka Clients > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-714: Client metrics and observability > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-770: Replace "buffered.records.per.partition" & > > >> >> > > >> "cache.max.bytes.buffering" with > > >> >> > > >> "{statestore.cache}/{input.buffer}.max.bytes" > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-848: The Next Generation of the Consumer Rebalance > > >> Protocol > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-858: Handle JBOD broker disk failure in KRaft > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-890: Transactions Server-Side Defense > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-892: Transactional StateStores > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-896: Remove old client protocol API versions in Kafka > > >> 4.0 - > > >> >> > > >> metrics/request log changes to identify deprecated apis > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-925: Rack aware task assignment in Kafka Streams > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-938: Add more metrics for measuring KRaft performance > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-951 - Leader discovery optimizations for the client > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-954: expand default DSL store configuration to custom > > >> types > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-959: Add BooleanConverter to Kafka Connect > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-960: Single-key single-timestamp IQv2 for state > stores > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-963: Additional metrics in Tiered Storage > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-968: Support single-key_multi-timestamp Interactive > > >> Queries > > >> >> > > (IQv2) > > >> >> > > >> for Versioned State Stores > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-970: Deprecate and remove Connect's redundant task > > >> >> > configurations > > >> >> > > >> endpoint > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-975: Docker Image for Apache Kafka > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-976: Cluster-wide dynamic log adjustment for Kafka > > >> Connect > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-978: Allow dynamic reloading of certificates with > > >> different DN > > >> >> > / > > >> >> > > >> SANs > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-979: Allow independently stop KRaft processes > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-980: Allow creating connectors in a stopped state > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-985: Add reverseRange and reverseAll query over > > kv-store > > >> in > > >> >> > IQv2 > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-988: Streams Standby Update Listener > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-992: Proposal to introduce IQv2 Query Types: > > >> >> > TimestampedKeyQuery > > >> >> > > >> and TimestampedRangeQuery > > >> >> > > >> - KIP-998: Give ProducerConfig(props, doLog) constructor > > >> protected > > >> >> > > access > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> Notable KIPs that didn't make the Freeze were KIP-977 - it > > only > > >> got > > >> >> > 2/3 > > >> >> > > >> votes. > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> For the full list and latest source of truth, refer to the > > >> Release > > >> >> > Plan > > >> >> > > >> 3.7.0 Document > > >> >> > > >> < > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Release+Plan+3.7.0 > > >> >> > >. > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> Thanks for your contributions once again! > > >> >> > > >> Best, > > >> >> > > >> Stan > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 2:27 PM Nick Telford < > > >> nick.telf...@gmail.com> > > >> >> > > >> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> Hi Stan, > > >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> > > >>> I'd like to propose including KIP-892 in the 3.7 release. > The > > >> KIP has > > >> >> > > >>> been > > >> >> > > >>> accepted and I'm just working on rebasing the > implementation > > >> against > > >> >> > > >>> trunk > > >> >> > > >>> before I open a PR. > > >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> > > >>> Regards, > > >> >> > > >>> Nick > > >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> > > >>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 at 11:27, Mayank Shekhar Narula < > > >> >> > > >>> mayanks.nar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> > > >>> > Hi Stan > > >> >> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > >>> > Can you include KIP-951 to the 3.7 release plan? All PRs > > are > > >> merged > > >> >> > > in > > >> >> > > >>> the > > >> >> > > >>> > trunk. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > >>> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 4:05 PM Stanislav Kozlovski > > >> >> > > >>> > <stanis...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > >>> > > Friendly reminder to everybody that the KIP Freeze is > > >> *exactly 7 > > >> >> > > days > > >> >> > > >>> > away* > > >> >> > > >>> > > - November 22. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > A KIP must be accepted by this date in order to be > > >> considered for > > >> >> > > >>> this > > >> >> > > >>> > > release. Note, any KIP that may not be implemented in > > >> time, or > > >> >> > > >>> otherwise > > >> >> > > >>> > > risks heavily destabilizing the release, should be > > >> deferred. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > Best, > > >> >> > > >>> > > Stan > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 6:03 AM Sophie Blee-Goldman < > > >> >> > > >>> > sop...@responsive.dev> > > >> >> > > >>> > > wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > Looks great, thank you! +1 > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 10:21 AM David Jacot > > >> >> > > >>> > <dja...@confluent.io.invalid > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > +1 from me as well. Thanks, Stan! > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > David > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 6:04 PM Ismael Juma < > > >> >> > m...@ismaeljuma.com> > > >> >> > > >>> > wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > Thanks Stanislav, +1 > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > Ismael > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 7:01 AM Stanislav > Kozlovski > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > <stanis...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > Hi all, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > Given the discussion here and the lack of any > > >> pushback, I > > >> >> > > >>> have > > >> >> > > >>> > > > changed > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > dates of the release: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > - KIP Freeze - *November 22 *(moved 4 days > later) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > - Feature Freeze - *December 6 *(moved 2 days > > >> earlier) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > - Code Freeze - *December 20* > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > If anyone has any thoughts against this > proposal > > - > > >> please > > >> >> > > >>> let me > > >> >> > > >>> > > > know! > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > It > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > would be good to settle on this early. These > will > > >> be the > > >> >> > > >>> dates > > >> >> > > >>> > > we're > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > going > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > with > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > Best, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > Stanislav > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 12:15 AM Sophie > > >> Blee-Goldman < > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > sop...@responsive.dev> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > Thanks for the response and explanations -- I > > >> think the > > >> >> > > >>> main > > >> >> > > >>> > > > question > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > for > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > me > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > was whether we intended to permanently > increase > > >> the KF > > >> >> > -- > > >> >> > > >>> FF > > >> >> > > >>> > gap > > >> >> > > >>> > > > from > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > historical 1 week to 3 weeks? Maybe this was > a > > >> >> > conscious > > >> >> > > >>> > decision > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > and I > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > just > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > missed the memo, hopefully someone else can > > >> chime in > > >> >> > > >>> here. I'm > > >> >> > > >>> > > all > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > for > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > additional though. And looking around at some > > of > > >> the > > >> >> > > recent > > >> >> > > >>> > > > releases, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > it > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > seems like we haven't been consistently > > >> following the > > >> >> > > >>> "usual" > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > schedule > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > since > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > the 2.x releases. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > Anyways, my main concern was making sure to > > >> leave a > > >> >> > full > > >> >> > > 2 > > >> >> > > >>> > weeks > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > between > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > feature freeze and code freeze, so I'm > > generally > > >> happy > > >> >> > > >>> with the > > >> >> > > >>> > > new > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > proposal. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > Although I would still prefer to have the KIP > > >> freeze > > >> >> > fall > > >> >> > > >>> on a > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > Wednesday > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > -- > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > Ismael actually brought up the same thing > > during > > >> the > > >> >> > > 3.5.0 > > >> >> > > >>> > > release > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > planning, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > so I'll just refer to his explanation for > this: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > We typically choose a Wednesday for the > various > > >> freeze > > >> >> > > >>> dates - > > >> >> > > >>> > > > there > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > are > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > often 1-2 day slips and it's better if that > > >> doesn't > > >> >> > > >>> require > > >> >> > > >>> > > > people > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > working through the weekend. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > (From this mailing list thread > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > < > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/dv1rym2jkf0141sfsbkws8ckkzw7st5h > > >> >> > > >>> > > > >) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > Thanks for driving the release! > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > Sophie > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 8:13 AM Stanislav > > >> Kozlovski > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > <stanis...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the thorough response, Sophie. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - Added to the "Future Release Plan" > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > 1. Why is the KIP freeze deadline on a > > >> Saturday? > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > It was simply added as a starting point - > > >> around 30 > > >> >> > > days > > >> >> > > >>> from > > >> >> > > >>> > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > announcement. We can move it earlier to the > > >> 15th of > > >> >> > > >>> November, > > >> >> > > >>> > > but > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > my > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > thinking is later is better with these > things > > >> - it's > > >> >> > > >>> already > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > aggressive > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > enough. e.g given the choice of Nov 15 vs > Nov > > >> 18, I > > >> >> > > don't > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > necessarily > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > see a > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > strong reason to choose 15. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > If people feel strongly about this, to make > > up > > >> for > > >> >> > > this, > > >> >> > > >>> we > > >> >> > > >>> > can > > >> >> > > >>> > > > eat > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > into > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > the KF-FF time as I'll touch upon later, > and > > >> move FF > > >> >> > a > > >> >> > > >>> few > > >> >> > > >>> > days > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > earlier > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > land on a Wednesday. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > This reduces the time one has to get their > > >> feature > > >> >> > > >>> complete > > >> >> > > >>> > > after > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > KF, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > but > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > allows for longer time to a KIP accepted, > so > > >> the > > >> >> > KF-FF > > >> >> > > >>> gap > > >> >> > > >>> > can > > >> >> > > >>> > > be > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > made > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > up > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > when developing the feature in parallel. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > , this makes it easy for everyone to > > >> remember when > > >> >> > > the > > >> >> > > >>> next > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > deadline > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > is > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > so they can make sure to get everything in > on > > >> time. I > > >> >> > > >>> worry > > >> >> > > >>> > > that > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > varying > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > this will catch people off guard. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > I don't see much value in optimizing the > > dates > > >> for > > >> >> > ease > > >> >> > > >>> of > > >> >> > > >>> > > > memory - > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > besides > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > the KIP Freeze (which is the base date), > > there > > >> are > > >> >> > only > > >> >> > > >>> two > > >> >> > > >>> > > more > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > dates > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > remember that are on the wiki. More > > >> importantly, we > > >> >> > > have > > >> >> > > >>> a > > >> >> > > >>> > > > plethora > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > of > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > tools that can be used to set up reminders > - > > >> so a > > >> >> > > >>> contributor > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > doesn't > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > necessarily need to remember anything if > > >> they're > > >> >> > > serious > > >> >> > > >>> > about > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > getting > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > their feature in. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > 3. Is there a particular reason for > having > > >> the > > >> >> > > feature > > >> >> > > >>> > freeze > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > almost > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > a > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > full 3 weeks from the KIP freeze? ... > having > > 3 > > >> weeks > > >> >> > > >>> between > > >> >> > > >>> > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > KIP > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > and > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > feature freeze (which are > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > usually separated by just a single week)? > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > I was going off the last two releases, > which > > >> had *20 > > >> >> > > >>> days* > > >> >> > > >>> > (~3 > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > weeks) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > in > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > between KF & FF. Here are their dates: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - AK 3.5 > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - KF: 22 March > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - FF: 12 April > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - (20 days after) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - CF: 26 April > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - (14 days after) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - Release: 15 June > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - 50 days after CF > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - AK 3.6 > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - KF: 26 July > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - FF: 16 Aug > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - (20 days after) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - CF: 30 Aug > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - (14 days after) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - Release: 11 October > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - 42 days after CF > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > I don't know the precise reasoning for > > >> extending the > > >> >> > > >>> time, > > >> >> > > >>> > nor > > >> >> > > >>> > > > what > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > is > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > most appropriate time - but having talked > > >> offline to > > >> >> > > some > > >> >> > > >>> > folks > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > prior > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > this discussion, it seemed reasonable. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Your proposal uses an aggressive 1-week gap > > >> between > > >> >> > > both, > > >> >> > > >>> > which > > >> >> > > >>> > > > is > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > quite > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > the jump from the previous 3 weeks. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Perhaps someone with more direct experience > > in > > >> the > > >> >> > > >>> recent can > > >> >> > > >>> > > > chime > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > in > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > here. Both for the reasoning for the > > extension > > >> from > > >> >> > 1w > > >> >> > > >>> to 3w > > >> >> > > >>> > in > > >> >> > > >>> > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > last > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > 2 > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > releases, and how they feel about reducing > > this > > >> >> > range. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > 4. On the other hand, we usually have a > > full > > >> two > > >> >> > > weeks > > >> >> > > >>> from > > >> >> > > >>> > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > feature > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > freeze deadline to the code freeze but with > > >> the given > > >> >> > > >>> > schedule > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > there > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > would > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > only be a week and a half. Given how > > important > > >> this > > >> >> > > >>> period is > > >> >> > > >>> > > for > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > testing > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > and stabilizing the release, and how vital > > >> this is > > >> >> > for > > >> >> > > >>> > > uncovering > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > blockers > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > that would have delayed the release > > deadline, I > > >> >> > really > > >> >> > > >>> think > > >> >> > > >>> > we > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > should > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > maintain the two-week gap (at a minimum) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > This is a fair point. At the end of the > day, > > >> we have > > >> >> > to > > >> >> > > >>> take > > >> >> > > >>> > > time > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > out > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > of > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > either one of the 3 ranges (now - KF; > KF-FF; > > >> FF-CF;) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > *It sounds fair to me to take out half a > week > > >> from > > >> >> > > KF-FF > > >> >> > > >>> and > > >> >> > > >>> > > add > > >> >> > > >>> > > > it > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > FF-CF*. e.g: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - KF=Nov 18 (Sat) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - FF=Dec 6 (Wed) 2.5w after > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > - CF=Dec 20 (Wed) 2w after > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > How do others feel about this? > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Just to throw a suggestion out there, if > we > > >> want to > > >> >> > > >>> avoid > > >> >> > > >>> > > > running > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > into > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > the winter holidays while still making up > for > > >> >> > slipping > > >> >> > > of > > >> >> > > >>> > > recent > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > releases, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > what about something like this: ... > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Looking at the last 2 releases, they both > had > > >> a full > > >> >> > > >>> month > > >> >> > > >>> > > > between > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > KIP > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Freeze and Code Freeze to finish > > >> contributions. Your > > >> >> > > >>> proposal > > >> >> > > >>> > > > goes > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > back > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > a more aggressive 3 weeks e2e time. All > else > > >> equal, > > >> >> > if > > >> >> > > >>> the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > release > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > date > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > is > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > to be kept as early January, I would prefer > > to > > >> opt > > >> >> > for > > >> >> > > >>> the > > >> >> > > >>> > more > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > accommodative 4-week period. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Note that historically, we have set all > the > > >> >> > deadlines > > >> >> > > >>> on a > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > Wednesday > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > and > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > when in doubt erred on the side of an > earlier > > >> >> > deadline > > >> >> > > >>> ... We > > >> >> > > >>> > > > can, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > and > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > often have, allowed things to come in late > > >> between > > >> >> > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > Wednesday > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > freeze > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > deadline and the following Friday, but only > > on > > >> a > > >> >> > > >>> case-by-case > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > basis. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > This makes sense to me. The proposal I put > > >> above puts > > >> >> > > >>> the two > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > critical > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > dates (FF & CF) on Wed to allow for this > > >> flexibility > > >> >> > in > > >> >> > > >>> case > > >> >> > > >>> > > it's > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > needed. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Best, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Stanislav > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 12:40 AM Sophie > > >> Blee-Goldman > > >> >> > < > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > sop...@responsive.dev> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Actually I have a few questions about the > > >> schedule: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > 1. Why is the KIP freeze deadline on a > > >> Saturday? > > >> >> > > >>> > > Traditionally > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > this > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > has > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > been on a Wednesday, which is nice > because > > >> it gives > > >> >> > > >>> people > > >> >> > > >>> > > > until > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > Monday > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > kick off the vote and give people a full > 3 > > >> working > > >> >> > > >>> days to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > review > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > and > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > vote > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > on it. Also, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > 2. Why are the subsequent deadlines on > > >> different > > >> >> > days > > >> >> > > >>> of > > >> >> > > >>> > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > week? > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Usually > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > we aim to have the freeze deadlines > > >> separated by an > > >> >> > > >>> integer > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > number > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > of > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > weeks. Besides just being a consequence > of > > >> the > > >> >> > > typical > > >> >> > > >>> 1/2 > > >> >> > > >>> > > week > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > separation > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > between freeze dates, this makes it easy > > for > > >> >> > everyone > > >> >> > > >>> to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > remember > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > when > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > next deadline is so they can make sure to > > get > > >> >> > > >>> everything in > > >> >> > > >>> > > on > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > time. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > I > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > worry that varying this will catch people > > off > > >> >> > guard. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > 3. Is there a particular reason for > having > > >> the > > >> >> > > feature > > >> >> > > >>> > freeze > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > almost > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > a > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > full > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > 3 weeks from the KIP freeze? I understand > > >> moving > > >> >> > the > > >> >> > > >>> KIP > > >> >> > > >>> > > freeze > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > deadline > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > up > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > to account for recent release delays, but > > >> aren't we > > >> >> > > >>> wasting > > >> >> > > >>> > > > some > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > of > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > that > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > gained time by having 3 weeks between the > > >> KIP and > > >> >> > > >>> feature > > >> >> > > >>> > > > freeze > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > (which > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > are > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > usually separated by just a single week)? > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > 4. On the other hand, we usually have a > > full > > >> two > > >> >> > > weeks > > >> >> > > >>> from > > >> >> > > >>> > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > feature > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > freeze deadline to the code freeze but > with > > >> the > > >> >> > given > > >> >> > > >>> > > schedule > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > there > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > would > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > only be a week and a half. Given how > > >> important this > > >> >> > > >>> period > > >> >> > > >>> > is > > >> >> > > >>> > > > for > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > testing > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > and stabilizing the release, and how > vital > > >> this is > > >> >> > > for > > >> >> > > >>> > > > uncovering > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > blockers > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > that would have delayed the release > > >> deadline, I > > >> >> > > really > > >> >> > > >>> > think > > >> >> > > >>> > > we > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > should > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > maintain the two-week gap (at a minimum) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Note that historically, we have set all > the > > >> >> > deadlines > > >> >> > > >>> on a > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > Wednesday > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > and > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > when in doubt erred on the side of an > > earlier > > >> >> > > >>> deadline, to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > encourage > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > folks > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > to get their work completed and > stabilized > > >> as soon > > >> >> > as > > >> >> > > >>> > > possible. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > We > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > can, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > and > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > often have, allowed things to come in > late > > >> between > > >> >> > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > Wednesday > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > freeze > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > deadline and the following Friday, but > only > > >> on a > > >> >> > > >>> > case-by-case > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > basis. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > This > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > way the RM has the flexibility to > determine > > >> what to > > >> >> > > >>> allow > > >> >> > > >>> > and > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > when, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > if > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > need > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > be, while still having everyone aim for > the > > >> >> > > established > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > deadlines. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Just to throw a suggestion out there, if > we > > >> want to > > >> >> > > >>> avoid > > >> >> > > >>> > > > running > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > into > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > winter holidays while still making up for > > >> slipping > > >> >> > of > > >> >> > > >>> > recent > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > releases, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > what > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > about something like this: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > KIP Freeze: Nov 22nd > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Feature Freeze: Nov 29th > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Code Freeze: Dec 13th > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > We can keep the release target as Jan 3rd > > or > > >> move > > >> >> > it > > >> >> > > >>> up to > > >> >> > > >>> > > Dec > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > 27th. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Personally, I would just aim to have it > as > > >> Dec 27th > > >> >> > > but > > >> >> > > >>> > keep > > >> >> > > >>> > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > stated > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > target as Jan 3rd, to account for > > unexpected > > >> >> > > >>> > blockers/delays > > >> >> > > >>> > > > and > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > time > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > away > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > during the winter holidays > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 3:14 PM Sophie > > >> >> > Blee-Goldman < > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > sop...@responsive.dev > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Can you add the 3.7 plan to the release > > >> schedule > > >> >> > > >>> page? > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > (this --> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Future+release+plan > ) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 2:27 AM > Stanislav > > >> >> > Kozlovski > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > <stanis...@confluent.io.invalid> > wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> Hey Chris, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks for the catch! It was indeed > > >> copied and I > > >> >> > > >>> wasn't > > >> >> > > >>> > > sure > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > what > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > make > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> of the bullet point, so I kept it. > What > > >> you say > > >> >> > > >>> makes > > >> >> > > >>> > > sense > > >> >> > > >>> > > > - > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > I > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > removed > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> it. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> I also added KIP-976! > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> Cheers! > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 9:35 PM Chris > > >> Egerton < > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > fearthecel...@gmail.com> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > Hi Stanislav, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > Thanks for putting this together! I > > >> think the > > >> >> > > >>> "Ensure > > >> >> > > >>> > > that > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > release > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > candidates include artifacts for the > > new > > >> >> > Connect > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > test-plugins > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > module" > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > section (which I'm guessing was > copied > > >> over > > >> >> > from > > >> >> > > >>> the > > >> >> > > >>> > > 3.6.0 > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > release > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> plan?) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > can be removed; we made sure that > > those > > >> >> > > artifacts > > >> >> > > >>> were > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > present > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > for > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> 3.6.0, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > and I don't anticipate any changes > > that > > >> would > > >> >> > > make > > >> >> > > >>> > them > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > likelier > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > be > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > accidentally dropped in subsequent > > >> releases > > >> >> > than > > >> >> > > >>> any > > >> >> > > >>> > > other > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > Maven > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> artifacts > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > that we publish. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > Also, can we add KIP-976 ( > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-976%3A+Cluster-wide+dynamic+log+adjustment+for+Kafka+Connect > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > ) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > to the release plan? The vote thread > > >> for it > > >> >> > > passed > > >> >> > > >>> > last > > >> >> > > >>> > > > week > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > and > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > I've > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > published a complete PR ( > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/14538 > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > ), > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> so > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > it > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > shouldn't be too difficult to get > > things > > >> >> > merged > > >> >> > > in > > >> >> > > >>> > time > > >> >> > > >>> > > > for > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > 3.7.0. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > Cheers, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > Chris > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 3:26 PM > > >> Stanislav > > >> >> > > >>> Kozlovski > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > <stanis...@confluent.io.invalid> > > wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks for letting me drive it, > > folks. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > I've created the 3.7.0 release > page > > >> here: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Release+Plan+3.7.0 > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > It outlines the key milestones and > > >> important > > >> >> > > >>> dates > > >> >> > > >>> > for > > >> >> > > >>> > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > release. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > In particular, since the last two > > >> releases > > >> >> > > >>> slipped > > >> >> > > >>> > > their > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > originally > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > targeted release date by taking an > > >> average > > >> >> > of > > >> >> > > 46 > > >> >> > > >>> > days > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > after > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > code > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> freeze > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > (as > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > opposed to the minimum which is 14 > > >> days), I > > >> >> > > >>> pulled > > >> >> > > >>> > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > dates > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > forward > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > try > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > and catch up with the original > > release > > >> >> > > schedule. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > You can refer to the last release > > >> during the > > >> >> > > >>> > Christmas > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > holiday > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > season > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> - > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Apache > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Kafka 3.4 > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > < > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Release+Plan+3.4.0 > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> - > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > see sample dates. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > The currently proposed dates are: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > *KIP Freeze - 18th November > > >> *(Saturday) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > *This is 1 month and four days > from > > >> now - > > >> >> > > rather > > >> >> > > >>> > > short - > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > but > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > I'm > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> afraid > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > is > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > the only lever that's easy to pull > > >> forward.* > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > As usual, a KIP must be accepted > by > > >> this > > >> >> > date > > >> >> > > in > > >> >> > > >>> > order > > >> >> > > >>> > > > to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > be > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> considered > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > for > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > this release. Note, any KIP that > may > > >> not be > > >> >> > > >>> > > implemented > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > in a > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > week, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > or > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > that > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > might destabilize the release, > > should > > >> be > > >> >> > > >>> deferred. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > *Feature Freeze - 8th December* > > >> (Friday) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > *This follows 3 weeks after the > KIP > > >> Freeze, > > >> >> > as > > >> >> > > >>> has > > >> >> > > >>> > > been > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > case > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > in > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> our > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > latest releases.* > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > By this point, we want all major > > >> features to > > >> >> > > be > > >> >> > > >>> > > merged & > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > us > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > be > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> working > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > on stabilisation. Minor features > > >> should have > > >> >> > > >>> PRs, > > >> >> > > >>> > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > release > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > branch > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > should > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > be cut; anything not in this state > > >> will be > > >> >> > > >>> > > automatically > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > moved > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > next > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > release in JIRA > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > *Code Freeze - 20th December* > > >> (Wednesday) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > *Critically, this is before the > > >> holiday > > >> >> > season > > >> >> > > >>> and > > >> >> > > >>> > > ends > > >> >> > > >>> > > > in > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > middle > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> of > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > the week, to give contributors > more > > >> time and > > >> >> > > >>> > > flexibility > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > address > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> any > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > last-minute without eating into > the > > >> time > > >> >> > > people > > >> >> > > >>> > > usually > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > take > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> holidays. It > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > comes 12 days after the Feature > > >> Freeze.This > > >> >> > is > > >> >> > > >>> two > > >> >> > > >>> > > days > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > shorter > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > than > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > usual code freeze window. I don't > > >> have a > > >> >> > > strong > > >> >> > > >>> > > opinion > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > and > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > am > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > open > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > extend it to Friday, or trade off > a > > >> day/two > > >> >> > > >>> with the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > KF<->FF > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > date > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> range.* > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > *Release -* *after January 3rd*. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > *It comes after a minimum of two > > >> weeks of > > >> >> > > >>> > > stabilization, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > so > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> earliest > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > we > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > can start releasing is January > 3rd. > > >> We will > > >> >> > > >>> move as > > >> >> > > >>> > > fast > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > as > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > we > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > can > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > and > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > aim > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > completing it as early in January > as > > >> >> > > possible.* > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > As for the initially-populated > KIPs > > >> in the > > >> >> > > >>> release > > >> >> > > >>> > > > plan, I > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > did > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > following: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > I kept 4 KIPs that were mentioned > in > > >> 3.6, > > >> >> > > saying > > >> >> > > >>> > they > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > would > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > have > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > minor > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > parts finished in 3.7 (as the > major > > >> ones > > >> >> > went > > >> >> > > >>> out in > > >> >> > > >>> > > > 3.6) > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > - KIP-405 Tiered Storage > mentioned a > > >> major > > >> >> > > part > > >> >> > > >>> went > > >> >> > > >>> > > out > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > with > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > 3.6 > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > and > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > remainder will come with 3.7 > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > - KIP-890 mentioned Part 1 shipped > > in > > >> 3.6. I > > >> >> > > am > > >> >> > > >>> > > assuming > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > remainder > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > will > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > come in 3.7, and have contacted > the > > >> author > > >> >> > to > > >> >> > > >>> > confirm. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > - KIP-926 was partially > implemented > > >> in 3.6. > > >> >> > I > > >> >> > > am > > >> >> > > >>> > > > assuming > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> remainder > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > will come in 3.7, and have > contacted > > >> the > > >> >> > > author > > >> >> > > >>> to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > confirm. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > - KIP-938 mentioned that the > > majority > > >> was > > >> >> > > >>> completed > > >> >> > > >>> > > and > > >> >> > > >>> > > > a > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > small > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> remainder > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > re: ForwardingManager metrics will > > >> come in > > >> >> > > 3.7. > > >> >> > > >>> I > > >> >> > > >>> > have > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > contacted > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > author > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > to confirm. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > I then went through the JIRA > filter > > >> which > > >> >> > > looks > > >> >> > > >>> at > > >> >> > > >>> > > open > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > issues > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > with > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > a > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> Fix > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Version of 3.7 and added KIP-770, > > >> KIP-858, > > >> >> > and > > >> >> > > >>> > > KIP-980. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > I also found a fair amount of > JIRAs > > >> that > > >> >> > were > > >> >> > > >>> > > targeting > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > 3.7 > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> release > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > but > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > consecutively had no activity on > > them > > >> for > > >> >> > the > > >> >> > > >>> past > > >> >> > > >>> > few > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > releases. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > For > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> most > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > of those, I pinged the author and > > >> explicitly > > >> >> > > >>> asked > > >> >> > > >>> > if > > >> >> > > >>> > > > it's > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > going > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> aim > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > to > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > make it to 3.7. I have not > included > > >> those > > >> >> > here > > >> >> > > >>> and > > >> >> > > >>> > > will > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > not > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > until > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > I > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> hear > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > confirmation. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Please review the plan and provide > > any > > >> >> > > >>> additional > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > information > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > or > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> updates > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > regarding KIPs that target this > > >> release > > >> >> > > version > > >> >> > > >>> > (3.7). > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > If you have authored any KIPs that > > >> have an > > >> >> > > >>> > inaccurate > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > status > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > in > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> list, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > or are not in the list and should > > be, > > >> or are > > >> >> > > in > > >> >> > > >>> the > > >> >> > > >>> > > list > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > and > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > should > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> not > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > be > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > - please inform me in this thread > so > > >> that I > > >> >> > > can > > >> >> > > >>> keep > > >> >> > > >>> > > the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > document > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > accurate > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > and up to date. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Excited to get this release going! > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > All the best, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Stanislav > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 9:12 AM > > Bruno > > >> >> > Cadonna > > >> >> > > < > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > cado...@apache.org > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks Stan! > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > +1 > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Best, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Bruno > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On 10/10/23 7:24 AM, Luke Chen > > >> wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks Stanislav! > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at > 3:05 AM > > >> Josep > > >> >> > Prat > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > <josep.p...@aiven.io.invalid > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Thanks Stanislav! > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> ——— > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Josep Prat > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Aiven Deutschland GmbH > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 > Berlin > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, > HRB > > >> 209739 > > >> >> > B > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Geschäftsführer: Oskari > > >> Saarenmaa & > > >> >> > Hannu > > >> >> > > >>> > > Valtonen > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> m: +491715557497 > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> w: aiven.io > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> e: josep.p...@aiven.io > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, 20:05 > > Chris > > >> >> > Egerton > > >> >> > > < > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> fearthecel...@gmail.com> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> +1, thanks Stanislav! > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023, 14:02 > > Bill > > >> >> > Bejeck < > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > bbej...@gmail.com > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>> +1 > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>> Thanks, Stanislav! > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>> -Bill > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at > > 1:59 PM > > >> Ismael > > >> >> > > >>> Juma < > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > m...@ismaeljuma.com> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>> Thanks for volunteering > > >> Stanislav! > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>> Ismael > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at > > >> 10:51 AM > > >> >> > > >>> Stanislav > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > Kozlovski > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>> <stanis...@confluent.io > > >> .invalid> > > >> >> > > wrote: > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>>> Hey all! > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>>> I would like to volunteer > > to > > >> be the > > >> >> > > >>> release > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > manager > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > driving > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> the > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> next > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>>> release - Apache Kafka > > >> *3.7.0*. > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>>> If there are no > objections, > > >> I will > > >> >> > > >>> start > > >> >> > > >>> > and > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > share > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > a > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > release > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > plan > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> soon > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>>> enough! > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>>> Cheers, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>>> Stanislav > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > -- > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Best, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > Stanislav > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> -- > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> Best, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> Stanislav > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > -- > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Best, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > Stanislav > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > -- > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > Best, > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > Stanislav > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > -- > > >> >> > > >>> > > Best, > > >> >> > > >>> > > Stanislav > > >> >> > > >>> > > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > >>> > -- > > >> >> > > >>> > Regards, > > >> >> > > >>> > Mayank Shekhar Narula > > >> >> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > >>> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> -- > > >> >> > > >> Best, > > >> >> > > >> Stanislav > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > -- > > >> >> > > > Best, > > >> >> > > > Stanislav > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > -- > > >> >> > > Best, > > >> >> > > Stanislav > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > > > > -- > > Best, > > Stanislav > > > -- Best, Stanislav
