Good point :) I added the specifics of the new UpdateMetadataRequest, which is the only protocol bump in this change.
Highlighted the broker and producer/consumer configuration changes, added some example values and added the new zookeeper json. Hope this makes things clearer. On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Gwen, > > Could we get the actual changes in that KIP? I.e. changes to metadata > request, changes to UpdateMetadataRequest, new configs and what will their > valid values be, etc. This kind of says that those things will change but > doesn't say what they will change to... > > -Jay > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com> wrote: > >> I created a KIP for the multi-port broker change. >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-2+-+Refactor+brokers+to+allow+listening+on+multiple+ports+and+IPs >> >> I'm not re-opening the discussion, since it was agreed on over a month >> ago and implementation is close to complete (I hope!). Lets consider >> this voted and accepted? >> >> Gwen >> >> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Great! Sounds like everyone is on the same page >> > >> > - I created a template page to make things easier. If you do >> Tools->Copy >> > on this page you can just fill in the italic portions with your >> details. >> > - I retrofitted KIP-1 to match this formatting >> > - I added the metadata section people asked for (a link to the >> > discussion, the JIRA, and the current status). Let's make sure we >> remember >> > to update the current status as things are figured out. >> > - Let's keep the discussion on the mailing list rather than on the >> wiki >> > pages. It makes sense to do one or the other so all the comments are >> in one >> > place and I think prior experience is that the wiki comments are the >> worse >> > way. >> > >> > I think it would be great do KIPs for some of the in-flight items folks >> > mentioned. >> > >> > -Jay >> > >> > On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> +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 >> >> >> >> >> >>
