Good question :) Lets say we want: KIP-43, KIP-35, KIP-4-metadata and KIP-33 to get in. How much time do we need?
I think 2 or 3 weeks is reasonable? Am I being too optimistic again? Gwen On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure, do we have a new intended release close date? > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > I'd LOVE to have KIP-33 get it. > > > > Can you work with Jun to make sure the timing will work? > > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Hi Gwen, > > > > > > KIP-47 is voted and passed, but not merged yet. It is actually > depending > > on > > > KIP-33 which is in the voting process. > > > > > > I know we discussed on the KIP hangout that we will do KIP-33 post > > 0.10.0. > > > But since 0.10.0 is delayed, maybe we can include KIP-33 given it is a > > > long-wanted fix by many users. > > > And I agree with Grant that it would be nice to have KIP-35 in this > > > release. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > > > > > I think we are in agreement here. > > > > Note that KIP-47 is already voted and merged AFAIK, so it will be in > > > 0.10.0 > > > > either way (actually, it will be nice if someone tries using this > > feature > > > > on a the RC...) > > > > > > > > Gwen > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Grant Henke <ghe...@cloudera.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Below are my thoughts on the release features. I don't feel too > > > strongly > > > > > about it, but I figured I would lay out my current perspective on > the > > > > 0.10 > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > When considering the optimal time to do this major release the > > > > > considerations I am weighing are: > > > > > > > > > > - Compatibility > > > > > - Are more breaking changes almost ready? We want major > > releases > > > to > > > > > be infrequent. Having the breaking changes/pieces in will > help > > > 0.10 > > > > > last > > > > > longer. > > > > > - Breaking again in 3 months is not favorable, especially for > > > > > clients. > > > > > - Features vs Risk > > > > > - Is it worth it for a user to upgrade? Given there is risk > in > > a > > > > > major upgrade, are there enough features to take that risk > on? > > > > > - The breaking change we have introduced is the timestamp > > changes > > > > > (KIP-31/KIP-32), but users can't use it yet (KIP-33) beyond a > > > purge > > > > > improvement. > > > > > - We did add Streams but that could technically be added in a > > > 0.9.1 > > > > > release. (I think) > > > > > > > > > > For those reasons I would prefer to block on these changes for 0.10 > > > > > > > > > > - KIP-4's Metadata changes > > > > > - Breaking wire protocol change > > > > > - Also, fixes critical issues and adds rack fields from > KIP-36 > > > > > - Patch available, need consensus/vote on metadata protocol > > > change > > > > > - KIP-35: Retrieving protocol version > > > > > - Though Kafka's internal usage has not been fully vetted, we > all > > > > agree > > > > > its useful to be able to ask for the protocol versions > > > > > - The Kafka client community really wants this > > > > > - It can reduce the impact/breakage of future releases > > > > > - KIP-33: Add a time based log index > > > > > - This was a major motivation for KIP-31/32 and adding it > could > > > > help > > > > > vet those changes to ensure we don't need a breaking change > > later > > > > > - Adding a feature flag to disable it broker side has been > > > > discussed > > > > > to mitigate risk > > > > > - It doesn't need to block the release if we are confident it > > > won't > > > > > need a breaking change > > > > > > > > > > It would also be nice to get these in if ready, but I don't think > the > > > > need > > > > > to block the release: > > > > > > > > > > - KIP-43: Kafka SASL enhancements > > > > > - Scope has been reduced > > > > > - Seams it could be added quickly > > > > > - Not breaking addition, so doesn't need to block > > > > > - KIP-47: Add timestamp-based log deletion policy > > > > > - Also leverages KIP-32/33 further vetting its implementation > > > > > - Not breaking addition, so doesn't need to block > > > > > > > > > > That said, I still think we should push to get a release candidate > > in a > > > > > reasonable amount of time (a couple weeks?). Hopefully that is > > > feasible. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Grant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Rajini Sivaram < > > > > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > If there is time, we will be very keen on including KIP-43 in the > > > > 0.10.0 > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Ashish Singh < > asi...@cloudera.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it is possible, I am also in favor of having some time to > > > include > > > > a > > > > > > few > > > > > > > more KIPs in 0.10. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Jason Gustafson < > > > > ja...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be nice to get a resolution on KIP-35 before > > the > > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > We were reluctant to push it through when the timeline was > > tight > > > > > > (because > > > > > > > > of unclear implications), but if we have more time to > consider > > > it, > > > > it > > > > > > > > definitely would feel better not to have the issue hanging. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Gwen Shapira < > > > g...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Thank you, Guozhang. We'll roll out a new RC early next > > week > > > > if > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > ok? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. I'm seeing very little community feedback (positive or > > > > negative) > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > release vote. > > > > > > > > > Would people feel better about the release if we delay it a > > bit > > > > to > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > high-priority and really awesome KIPs in? (KIP-35, KIP-43, > > > > metadata > > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > > from KIP-4 for example)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gwen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Guozhang Wang < > > > > wangg...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Gwen: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We found a critical bug in Kafka Streams that heavily > > impact > > > > its > > > > > > > > > > performance: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1163 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has been merged to 0.10.0 branch. Can we roll out > > another > > > > RC? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Dana Powers < > > > > > > dana.pow...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 -- verified that all kafka-python integration tests > > now > > > > pass > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Gwen Shapira < > > > > > g...@confluent.io > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Kafka users, developers and client-developers, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the second candidate for release of Apache > > Kafka > > > > > > > 0.10.0.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a major release that includes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) New message format including timestamps > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (2) client interceptor API > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (3) Kafka Streams. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since this is a major release, we will give people > more > > > > time > > > > > to > > > > > > > try > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > out and give feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release notes for the 0.10.0.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > release: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://home.apache.org/~gwenshap/0.10.0.0-rc1/RELEASE_NOTES.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *** Please download, test and vote by Monday, April > 4, > > > 4pm > > > > PT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kafka's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > release:http://kafka.apache.org/KEYS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Release artifacts to be voted upon (source and > > > > > > > > > > > > binary): > http://home.apache.org/~gwenshap/0.10.0.0-rc1/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Maven artifacts to be voted > > > > > > > > > > > > upon: > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/staging/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * scala-dochttp:// > > > > > > > home.apache.org/~gwenshap/0.10.0.0-rc1/scaladoc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * java-dochttp:// > > > > > > home.apache.org/~gwenshap/0.10.0.0-rc1/javadoc/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * tag to be voted upon (off 0.10.0 branch) is the > > > 0.10.0.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > tag: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=kafka.git;a=tag;h=759940658d805b1262101dce0ea9a9d562c5f30d > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Documentation: > > > > > > http://kafka.apache.org/0100/documentation.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Protocol: > http://kafka.apache.org/0100/protocol.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gwen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > Ashish > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Grant Henke > > > > > Software Engineer | Cloudera > > > > > gr...@cloudera.com | twitter.com/gchenke | > > linkedin.com/in/granthenke > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
