+1. Thanks for the KIP. On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:54 AM, charly molter <charly.mol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > The KIP has been updated. As it has change should I restart the vote? > > In any case I'm still missing one binding vote if anyone wants to help. > Thanks! > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:13 PM, charly molter <charly.mol...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Sounds good I'll update the KIP > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi Charly, > >> > >> Personally I prefer emitting both and deprecate old one. This does not > >> block on the 2.0 release and we don't need to worry about more users > >> picking up the old metric in 1.1 release. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:08 AM, charly molter <charly.mol...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks Jun and Becket! > >> > > >> > I think your point about 1.0 vs 2.0 makes sense I can update the KIP > to > >> > reflect this. > >> > > >> > What's the process for 2.0 contributions as I can see that trunk is > 1.1 > >> and > >> > no 2.x branch? > >> > > >> > Here's what I can do: > >> > - Not write the code change until trunk moves to 2.0. > >> > - Write the change but leave the PR open until we start working on > 2.0. > >> > - Stall this KIP until 2.0 development starts (IIRC it's pretty soon). > >> > - Do it in a backward compatible way (publish both sets of metrics) > and > >> > open a Jira tagged on 2.0 to remove the old metrics. > >> > > >> > Let me know what's the right way to go. > >> > > >> > Thanks! > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Thanks for the KIP, Charly. > >> > > > >> > > +1. The proposal looks good to me. I agree with Jun that it is > better > >> to > >> > > make the metrics consistent with other metrics. That being said, > >> arguably > >> > > this is a backwards incompatible change. Since we are at 1.0, > >> backwards > >> > > incompatible changes are supposed to be in 2.0. Not sure if that is > >> the > >> > > plan or not. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > > >> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Hi, Jiangjie, > >> > > > > >> > > > Since you proposed the original KIP-92, do you want to see if this > >> KIP > >> > > > makes sense? > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > >> > > > Jun > >> > > > > >> > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:48 AM, charly molter < > >> > charly.mol...@gmail.com> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I would like to start the voting thread for KIP-225. > >> > > > > This KIP proposes to correct some lag metrics emitted by the > >> > consumer. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > The KIP wiki is here: > >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/uaBzB > >> > > > > > >> > > > > The discussion thread is here: > >> > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/Kafka/uyzND1F33uL19AYx/threaded > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Also could someone assign me to this Jira: KAFKA-5890 > >> > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-5890> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > -- > >> > > > > Charly Molter > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Charly Molter > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Charly Molter > > > > > > -- > Charly Molter >
