+1 (binding) The AdminClient piece will probably need follow up, but given that it's defined in the context of incomplete KIP-4 design, I'm kind of assuming it's still up for further discussion once we hit the implementation of that class (where I think a wholistic view of the API is needed).
Vahid, I think this gives you enough to close the vote given 3 binding votes + >72hrs passed :) -Ewen On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Rajini Sivaram < rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Apurva Mehta <apu...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 Thanks for the KIP! > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, Vahid. +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Vahid S Hashemian < > > > > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Happy Monday, > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start voting on KIP-88 ( > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > > > 88%3A+OffsetFetch+Protocol+Update > > > > > ). > > > > > The discussion thread can be found here: > > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg59608.html > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for your feedback. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > --Vahid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > > Rajini >
