+1 Will be happy to provide a KIP for the multiple-listeners patch.
Gwen On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Joe Stein <joe.st...@stealth.ly> wrote: > +1 to everything we have been saying and where this (has settled to)/(is > settling to). > > I am sure other folks have some more feedback and think we should try to > keep this discussion going if need be. I am also a firm believer of form > following function so kicking the tires some to flesh out the details of > this and have some organic growth with the process will be healthy and > beneficial to the community. > > For my part, what I will do is open a few KIP based on some of the work I > have been involved with for 0.8.3. Off the top of my head this would > include 1) changes to re-assignment of partitions 2) kafka cli 3) global > configs 4) security white list black list by ip 5) SSL 6) We probably will > have lots of Security related KIPs and should treat them all individually > when the time is appropriate 7) Kafka on Mesos. > > If someone else wants to jump in to start getting some of the security KIP > that we are going to have in 0.8.3 I think that would be great (e.g. > Multiple Listeners for Kafka Brokers). There are also a few other tickets I > can think of that are important to have in the code in 0.8.3 that should > have KIP also that I haven't really been involved in. I will take a few > minutes and go through JIRA (one I can think of like auto assign id that is > already committed I think) and ask for a KIP if appropriate or if I feel > that I can write it up (both from a time and understanding perspective) do > so. > > long story short, I encourage folks to start moving ahead with the KIP for > 0.8.3 as how we operate. any objections? > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 on the idea, and we could mutually link the KIP wiki page with the the >> created JIRA ticket (i.e. include the JIRA number on the page and the KIP >> url on the ticket description). >> >> Regarding the KIP process, probably we do not need two phase communication >> of a [DISCUSS] followed by [VOTE], as Jay said the voting should be clear >> while people discuss about that. >> >> About who should trigger the process, I think the only involved people >> would be 1) when the patch is submitted / or even the ticket is created, >> the assignee could choose to start the KIP process if she thought it is >> necessary; 2) the reviewer of the patch can also suggest starting KIP >> discussions. >> >> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >> >> > +1 to Ewen's suggestions: Deprecation, status and version. >> > >> > Perhaps add the JIRA where the KIP was implemented to the metadata. >> > This will help tie things together. >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava >> > <e...@confluent.io> wrote: >> > > I think adding a section about deprecation would be helpful. A good >> > > fraction of the time I would expect the goal of a KIP is to fix or >> > replace >> > > older functionality that needs continued support for compatibility, but >> > > should eventually be phased out. This helps Kafka devs understand how >> > long >> > > they'll end up supporting multiple versions of features and helps users >> > > understand when they're going to have to make updates to their >> > applications. >> > > >> > > Less important but useful -- having a bit of standard metadata like >> PEPs >> > > do. Two I think are important are status (if someone lands on the KIP >> > page, >> > > can they tell whether this KIP was ever completed?) and/or the version >> > the >> > > KIP was first released in. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > >> I'm definitely +1 on the KIP concept. As Joe mentioned, we are already >> > >> doing this in one form or the other. However, IMO it is fairly ad hoc >> > >> - i.e., a combination of DISCUSS threads, jira comments, RB and code >> > >> comments, wikis and html documentation. In the past I have had to dig >> > >> into a bunch of these to try and figure out why something was >> > >> implemented a certain way. I think KIPs can help a lot here first by >> > >> providing guidelines on what to think about (compatibility, new APIs, >> > >> etc.) when working through a major feature; and second by becoming a >> > >> crisp source of truth documentation for new releases. E.g., for >> > >> feature X: see relevant KIPs: a, b, c, etc. >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 08:11:20PM -0800, Jay Kreps wrote: >> > >> > Hey Joe, >> > >> > >> > >> > Yeah I guess the question is what is the definition of major? I >> agree >> > we >> > >> > definitely don't want to generate a bunch of paperwork. We have >> enough >> > >> > problems just getting all the contributions reviewed and checked in >> > in a >> > >> > timely fashion... >> > >> > >> > >> > So obviously bug fixes would not apply here. >> > >> > >> > >> > I think it is also pretty clear that big features should get >> reviewed >> > and >> > >> > discussed. To pick on myself, for example, the log compaction work >> was >> > >> done >> > >> > without enough public discussion about how it worked and why >> (imho). I >> > >> > hope/claim that enough rigour in thinking about use-cases and >> > operations >> > >> > and so on was done that it turned out well, but the discussion was >> > just >> > >> > between a few people with no real public output. This kind of >> feature >> > is >> > >> > clearly a big change and something we should discuss. >> > >> > >> > >> > If we limit ourselves to just the public contracts the KIP >> introduces >> > the >> > >> > discussion would just be on the new configs and monitoring without >> > >> really a >> > >> > discussion of the design and how it works which is obviously closely >> > >> > related. >> > >> > >> > >> > I don't think this should be more work because in practice we are >> > making >> > >> > wiki pages for any big thing anyway. So this would just be a >> > consistent >> > >> way >> > >> > of numbering and structuring these pages. This would also give a >> clear >> > >> call >> > >> > to action: "hey kafka people, come read my wiki and think this >> > through". >> > >> > >> > >> > I actually thinking the voting aspect is less important. I think it >> is >> > >> > generally clear when there is agreement on something and not. So >> from >> > my >> > >> > point of view we could actually just eliminate that part if that is >> > too >> > >> > formal, it just seemed like a good way to formally adopt something. >> > >> > >> > >> > To address some of your comments from the wiki: >> > >> > >> > >> > 1. This doesn't inhibit someone coming along and putting up a patch. >> > It >> > >> is >> > >> > just that when they do if it is a big thing introducing new >> > functionality >> > >> > we would ask for a little discussion on the basic feature/contracts >> > prior >> > >> > to code review. >> > >> > >> > >> > 2. We definitely definitely don't want people generating a lot of >> > these >> > >> > things every time they have an idea that they aren't going to >> > implement. >> > >> So >> > >> > this is only applicable to things you absolutely will check in code >> > for. >> > >> We >> > >> > also don't want to be making proposals before things are thought >> > through, >> > >> > which often requires writing the code. So I think the right time >> for a >> > >> KIP >> > >> > is when you are far enough along that you know the issues and >> > tradeoffs >> > >> but >> > >> > not so far along that you are going to be totally opposed to any >> > change. >> > >> > Sometimes that is prior to writing any code and sometimes not until >> > you >> > >> are >> > >> > practically done. >> > >> > >> > >> > The key problem I see this fixing is that there is enough new >> > development >> > >> > happening that it is pretty hard for everyone to review every line >> of >> > >> every >> > >> > iteration of every patch. But all of us should be fully aware of new >> > >> > features, the ramifications, the new public interfaces, etc. If we >> > aren't >> > >> > aware of that we can't really build a holistic system that is >> > beautiful >> > >> and >> > >> > consistent across. So the idea is that if you fully review the KIPs >> > you >> > >> can >> > >> > be sure that even if you don't know every new line of code, you know >> > the >> > >> > major changes coming in. >> > >> > >> > >> > -Jay >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Joe Stein <joe.st...@stealth.ly> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > Thanks Jay for kicking this off! I think the confluence page you >> > wrote >> > >> up >> > >> > > is a great start. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > The KIP makes sense to me (at a minimum) if there is going to be >> any >> > >> > > "breaking change". This way Kafka can continue to grow and blossom >> > and >> > >> we >> > >> > > have a process in place if we are going to release a thorn ... and >> > >> when we >> > >> > > do it is *CLEAR* about what and why that is. We can easily >> document >> > >> which >> > >> > > KIPs where involved with this release (which I think should get >> > >> committed >> > >> > > afterwards somewhere so no chance of edit after release). This >> > >> approach I >> > >> > > had been thinking about also allows changes to occur as they do >> now >> > as >> > >> long >> > >> > > as they are backwards compatible. Hopefully we never need a KIP >> but >> > >> when >> > >> > > we do the PMC can vote on it and folks can read the release notes >> > with >> > >> > > *CLEAR* understanding what is going to break their existing >> > setup... at >> > >> > > least that is how I have been thinking about it. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Let me know what you think about this base minimum approach... I >> > hadn't >> > >> > > really thought of the KIP for *ANY* "major change" and I have to >> > think >> > >> more >> > >> > > about that. I have some other comments for minor items in the >> > >> confluence >> > >> > > page I will make once I think more about how I feel having a KIP >> for >> > >> more >> > >> > > than what I was thinking about already. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > I do think we should have "major changes" go through confluence, >> > >> mailing >> > >> > > list discuss and JIRA but kind of feel we have been doing that >> > already >> > >> ... >> > >> > > if there are cases where that isn't the case we should highlight >> and >> > >> learn >> > >> > > from them and formalize that more if need be. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > /******************************************* >> > >> > > Joe Stein >> > >> > > Founder, Principal Consultant >> > >> > > Big Data Open Source Security LLC >> > >> > > http://www.stealth.ly >> > >> > > Twitter: @allthingshadoop < >> http://www.twitter.com/allthingshadoop> >> > >> > > ********************************************/ >> > >> > > >> > >> > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > The idea of KIPs came up in a previous discussion but there was >> no >> > >> real >> > >> > > > crisp definition of what they were. Here is an attempt at >> > defining a >> > >> > > > process: >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > The trick here is to have something light-weight enough that it >> > >> isn't a >> > >> > > > hassle for small changes, but enough so that changes get the >> > >> eyeballs of >> > >> > > > the committers and heavy users. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > Thoughts? >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > -Jay >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Thanks, >> > > Ewen >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> -- Guozhang >>
