Re: [VOTE] 0.10.0.0 RC1
I am not sure about the other KIPs, For KIP-33 and KIP-47 I think it is enough if we have reasonable review iterations. On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > 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 wrote: > > > Sure, do we have a new intended release close date? > > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Gwen Shapira > 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 > > 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 > > 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 > > > > > 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 > > > > > > reas
Re: [VOTE] 0.10.0.0 RC1
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 wrote: > Sure, do we have a new intended release close date? > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Gwen Shapira 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 > 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 > 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 > > > 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,
Re: [VOTE] 0.10.0.0 RC1
Sure, do we have a new intended release close date? On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Gwen Shapira 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 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 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 > > 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 > > > > > 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 > > > >
Re: [VOTE] 0.10.0.0 RC1
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 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 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 > 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 > > > 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
Re: [VOTE] 0.10.0.0 RC1
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 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 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 > > 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 > > > > 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)? > >
Re: [VOTE] 0.10.0.0 RC1
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 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 > 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 > > > 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 > > > 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 > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] 0.10.0.0 RC1
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 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 > > 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 > > 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 > > > 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 > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] 0.10.0.0 RC1
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 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 > 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 > 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 > > 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 > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 -- verified that all kafka-python integration tests now pass > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Gwen Shapira > > > 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
Re: [VOTE] 0.10.0.0 RC1
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 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 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 > 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 > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 -- verified that all kafka-python integration tests now pass > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Gwen Shapira > > 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
Re: [VOTE] 0.10.0.0 RC1
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 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 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 > > wrote: > > > > > +1 -- verified that all kafka-python integration tests now pass > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Gwen Shapira > 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 > > >
Re: [VOTE] 0.10.0.0 RC1
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 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 > wrote: > > > +1 -- verified that all kafka-python integration tests now pass > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Gwen Shapira 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 >
Re: [VOTE] 0.10.0.0 RC1
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 wrote: > +1 -- verified that all kafka-python integration tests now pass > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Gwen Shapira 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
Re: [VOTE] 0.10.0.0 RC1
+1 -- verified that all kafka-python integration tests now pass On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Gwen Shapira 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 >
[VOTE] 0.10.0.0 RC1
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
