Along with the KIP what do folks think about (if vote passes and code commits) a 0.9.0.1? We could slate the 0.9.0.1 release for second week of January maybe?
It might be too soon to flip the entire "unstable" bit at once. a few more weeks might help flesh that out some. We could also keep doing that until 0.9.1.0 and call it stable then. It looks like the KIP has to get written up and voted on. The discuss looks like it happened in the JIRA we should give folks at least time (via a [DISCUSS]) to see that and can comment and chat more if need be in the JIRA. ~ Joe Stein On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > (Moving discussion to dev) > > Since this is a public API change, don't we technically need a KIP + Vote? > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Pierre-Yves Ritschard <p...@spootnik.org> > wrote: > > > Hi list, > > > > I've been working on an issue at > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3006 and it is now a good > > time to ask for feedback. > > > > The attached PR moves all signatures which accepted either arrays or > > java.util.List to accept java.util.Collection. The aim is to provide > > consumers of kafka-clients a unified way to work with sequences. > > > > Some concern was raised in the issue wrt to potential source > > compatibility issues when different versions of the kafka-clients JAR > > end up on a given classpath. Any people who feel they might be impacted > > is encouraged to mention it here to inform the decision (it would still > > be possible to keep the other signatures around but it adds a load of > > bloat and decreases legibility/clarity IMO). > > >
