Sorry for the double email. I've compiled the fixes made by the other PR
and it fixes the Windows problem: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/5603
It triggers a few errors in the unit tests, which is probably due to the
order changes of which files are deleted. Let's continue the discussion
ther
Hi All,
I have completed my binary compatibility testing on this as well. Created a
small script & example to make this reproducible:
https://gist.github.com/viktorsomogyi/391defca73e7a46a2c6a40bc699231d4 .
Also, thanks for the votes so far, we're still awaiting for 2 binding.
Cheers,
Viktor
On
Hi Stephan,
https://jira.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7278
This might (according to Dong) be a better fix for the issue. Could you
kindly apply to patch to your kafka (assuming that your version is
reasonably close to the latest), and see if that helps?
Regards,
On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 at 02:27, Ism
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks for the KIP.
On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 10:06 PM Satish Duggana
wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP,
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 7:59 PM, Matthias J. Sax
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > On 8/30/18 11:30 PM, Dongjin Lee wrote:
> > > Thanks for the KIP. I'm +1 (n
+1 (non-binding)
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:21 PM Manikumar wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
> Thanks for the KIP.
>
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 10:06 PM Satish Duggana
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the KIP,
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 7:59 PM, Matthias J. Sax
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
Guozhang,
Could you please send the invitation for creating my new Apache ID
(muralimani)? I had sent the email to *priv...@kafka.apache.org
* mail id. I am sending this mail as you are one
of the PMC member of Apache Kakfa.
On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 1:31 PM Murali Mani wrote:
> Guozhang,
>
> In
On 30.08.2018 15:17, Matthias J. Sax wrote:
Nick,
Would be good to understand the difference between the current approach
and what Jan suggested. If we believe that the current proposal is too
limited in functionality and also hard to extend later on, it might make
sense to work on a more gen
Hello,
I completed set up according to cwiki instruction -
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Developer+Setup
I have also built all the sources and jars using `gradlew jarAll`
After that, I created a Scala application configuration in Eclipse to
debug. I provided the sources to lo
Finished my deeper scan on your approach.
Most of the comments I put at the PR are minor code style things.
One forward call seems to be a bug though, would be great if you could
double check.
the one problem I see is that the high watermark store grows unbounded.
A key being deleted from the s
Apologies, miscounted the binding votes but the good news is that we need
only one.
Cheers,
Viktor
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 11:09 AM Viktor Somogyi-Vass
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have completed my binary compatibility testing on this as well. Created
> a small script & example to make this reproduci
KAFKA-7278 doesn't fix the Windows issues.
Ismael
On Mon, 3 Sep 2018, 02:42 M. Manna, wrote:
> Hi Stephan,
>
> https://jira.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-7278
>
> This might (according to Dong) be a better fix for the issue. Could you
> kindly apply to patch to your kafka (assuming that your ver
Dear commiters.
Please, vote on a KIP.
В Пт, 31/08/2018 в 12:05 -0500, John Roesler пишет:
> Hi Nikolay,
>
> You can start a PR any time, but we cannot per it (and probably won't do
> serious reviews) until after the KIP is voted and approved.
>
> Sometimes people start a PR during discussion j
Hi Manna
If you check the first email in this thread I was telling I already tested
the fix by Dong and that it unfortunately didn't work. I've been building
from trunk.
I've instead opened a PR based on various other people's fixes and it
passed Jenkins and also fixes the windows issues encounte
bump up! waiting for 2 more binding votes!
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 7:36 AM Satish Duggana
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 2:59 AM, Harsha wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > -Harsha
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018, at 12:46 PM, Jakub Scholz wrote:
> > > +1 (non-binding)
> > >
+1
On Sun, 2 Sep 2018 at 15:20 Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On 9/1/18 2:40 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> > +1 (binding).
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Dongjin Lee wrote:
> >
> >> +1 (non-binding)
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 8:53 AM Bill Bejeck wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1
>
+1 (non binding)
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 3:14 PM Manikumar wrote:
>
> bump up! waiting for 2 more binding votes!
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 7:36 AM Satish Duggana
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 2:59 AM, Harsha wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > -Harsha
>
Hi Ron,
I really like this KIP, it is very needed.
I am still looking through it but unfortunately I am not too familiar with
the networking code to evaluate your solution.
I'd like to ask what happens if re-authentication consistently fails. Would
we retry endlessly? Since the functionality for
Hi Guozhang,
Yes, I totally agree with you. Like I said, I think it is an overkill
for now, to make so many changes for a small improvement.
And like you said, the only way to do this is the "ugly and dirty"
way, do you think we should still apply this improvement?
I updated a new BuildToList() (
Hi Jan
Thank you for taking the time to look into my PR. I have updated it
accordingly along with the suggestions from John. Please note that I am by
no means an expert on Java, so I really do appreciate any Java-specific
feedback you may have. Do not worry about being overly verbose on it.
You a
Thanks for the KIP.
I was initially wondering if we need to add this into Kafka code base
not. You could just go with a custom `Partitioner` implementation.
The demand of KAFKA- seems not to be big actually. On the other
hand, it might be a generic use case that justifies to add to Kafka code
Thanks for the feedback, Stanislav.
<< to retry after some delay depending on how many retries have been attempted
> so far: after some small amount of time for the first retry (e.g. 1
> minute), double that for the second retry, and 4 times the initial delay
> for every retry thereafter. Retry a
I just realized there was one place in the KIP that stated that retries
could occur indefinitely (when a client attempts to change identity, which
we arbitrarily disallow). This was a mistake, a holdover from a prior
draft of the KIP. This is now fixed. Retries are never allowed
indefinitely.
<
Brett,
Yes, I will post PR tomorrow.
Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu
On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 6:28 PM Brett Rann wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) from me on the interface. I'd like to see someone familiar
> with
> the code comment on the approach, and note there's a couple of different
> approaches: what's docume
Might also be worth moving to a vote thread? Discussion seems to have gone as
far as it can.
> On 4 Sep 2018, at 12:08, xiongqi wu wrote:
>
> Brett,
>
> Yes, I will post PR tomorrow.
>
> Xiongqi (Wesley) Wu
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 6:28 PM Brett Rann wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding) fro
hi Jason
> Thanks for the KIP. Makes sense to me. Should we make a similar change to
> AdminClient?
I have updated KIP-367 to address your comment. Could you please take a look?
On 2018/08/28 20:13:19, Jason Gustafson wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP. Makes sense to me. Should we make a similar cha
25 matches
Mail list logo
