Thank you very much for the votes. The vote is now closed with 3 binding +1 (Becket Qin, Jun Rao and Jason Gustafson).
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> wrote: > +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 > > > -- Charly Molter
