Thanks for your response. BB1: I have removed the contradictory statement.
LB5: OK, I will keep the KIP as it is. I will call for the vote Cheers Le lun. 1 juin 2026 à 16:33, Bill Bejeck <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi Sebastian, > > Thanks for the KIP! This will be a great, much needed addition. > I realize I'm a bit late to the discussion. Overall things look good to me > and I have one nit comment. I also think the KIP is ready for a vote. > > Regarding the treatment of null keys I agree with Lucas's comment for the > treatment of null keys (round-robin) distribution. > In "Partition Routing" section point 2 seems to reflection this change but > then then it concludes with "a null key goes to a default partition (0 in > the test driver)" . I find this a little contradictory, can we either > clarify or remove the statement? > > Thanks, > Bill > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 8:33 AM Lucas Brutschy via dev < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Sebastian, > > > > Thanks for the response! > > > > LB5: I was thinking of this solution but I think it introduces more > > problems than it solves. Long-term, I feel it would be a footgun if > > people try to compare test records _with_ partitions. And the current > > implementation with a reasonable default partition should already be > > backward compatible. There are other possible solutions, like a custom > > assertion or an operation to "wipe" the partition, but they are > > probably not worth the effort. As I mentioned before, I don't see a > > better solution to this -- I would just keep the KIP as it is. I > > mostly included it in the discussion to make people aware and maybe > > spark an idea in someone. > > > > Cheers, > > Lucas > > >
