Hi Harsha, What is the aim of the PR, is it to fix binary compatibility, source compatibility or both? I think it only fixes source compatibility, so I am interested in what testing has been done to ensure that this fix solves the Storm issue.
Thanks, Ismael On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Harsha <ka...@harsha.io> wrote: > Hi, > We missed this vote earlier and realized thats its breaking the > 0.9.x client api compatibility. I opened a JIRA here > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3633 . Can we keep > the old methods with deprecated tag in 0.10 release. > > Thanks, > Harsha > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016, at 01:51 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > > Looks like the KIP has passed. The finally tally is +5 among committers > > and > > +9 overall. > > > > Thanks to Pierre-Yves Ritschard for all of the hard work and persistence > > with this! > > > > -Jason > > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava > > <e...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > +1. > > > > > > Normally I'd be more of a stickler for compatibility, but this is new, > I > > > think it's worth emphasizing that unstable actually means unstable & > might > > > require recompile (and maybe even adapting code when we think the > change > > > warrants it), and I think the impact is relatively low since those > adopting > > > the new consumer know that it's very new. Agreed with Guozhang that > better > > > documenting the annotations will help (and personally apologize for > that > > > since we hastily introduced the annotations to give ourselves wiggle > room > > > on Connect). > > > > > > -Ewen > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'd like to open the vote for KIP-45. We've discussed several > > > > alternatives > > > > > on the mailing list and in the KIP call, but this vote is only on > the > > > > > documented KIP: > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61337336. > > > > > This > > > > > change will not be compatible with 0.9, but it will provide a > cleaner > > > API > > > > > long term for users to work with. This is really the last chance to > > > make > > > > an > > > > > incompatible change like this with 0.10 shortly on the way, but > > > > compatible > > > > > options (such as method overloading) could be brought up again in > the > > > > > future if we find it's needed. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Thanks, > > > Ewen > > > >
