dengziming created KAFKA-13509:
--
Summary: Support max timestamp in GetOffsetShell
Key: KAFKA-13509
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13509
Project: Kafka
Issue Type: Sub-task
Hello Tamara,
Thanks for your interest, I've added you to the contributor list.
Guozhang
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 9:24 PM Tamara Skokova
wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to contribute to Apache Kafka.
> Could you please grant me contributor access?
> ID: tamara_skokova
>
--
-- Guozhang
Hi,
I would like to contribute to Apache Kafka.
Could you please grant me contributor access?
ID: tamara_skokova
Hi all, I'm kafka user. i find a bug about the default value when i used
Kafka connect, so i search information and find the patch:
https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/8575, but KIP-581 seem doesn't to been
pushed.
Thanks for the KIP. Overall, make sense.
One question: What is the purpose to `RawRangeQuery`? Seems not very
user friendly.
-Matthias
On 11/30/21 12:48 PM, Vasiliki Papavasileiou wrote:
Thank you John! Yes, that was a typo from copying and I fixed it.
Since there have been no more
Hey Justine,
Yes, sorry I will update the wording. The original (untagged) metric will
remain the same to ensure any monitoring/alerting will be untouched by this
change.
With my implementation (that I have not yet pushed upstream from our fork)
I am not very concerned about performance impacts.
Hi Mason,
Thanks for the KIP. I had a few questions.
Are you saying that we will be keeping the original (untagged) offline
partitions count metric? I was a little confused by the wording in the KIP>
I'm also curious about potential performance impacts. Have you looked into
this?
Thanks,
Hey,
Planning to open a vote for this small change tomorrow - haven't heard
anything yet but open to any feedback.
Best,
Mason
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 1:54 PM Mason Legere
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I would like to start a discussion for KIP-804
>
Hi Talat,
I've been following this with interest. Following on from the multiple
topics answer have you considered creating new logical topics server side?
These would overlay existing topics but have filters applied.
For instance, given a topic: topic1 you could have an admin API that
Hi Talat,
Have you considered using 10x more topics - perhaps using multiple clusters -
and avoid having to do any filtering in the clients?
--
Igor
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021, at 8:16 PM, Talat Uyarer wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Thanks for your comments. My goal is apply filter without any
>
Thanks for the KIP!
+1 (binding)
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 3:49 AM Luke Chen wrote:
>
> Hi Séamus,
>
> Thanks for the update.
> Looks better now!
>
> Thank you.
> Luke
>
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 12:57 AM Séamus Ó Ceanainn <
> seamus.oceana...@zalando.ie> wrote:
>
> > Hey Luke,
> >
> > Thanks for
Hi Arjun,
Thank you for taking a look at this KIP.
1.a Yes this is exactly what this KIP is proposing.
1.b I prefer returning all plugins together instead of having different paths.
2. While we seem to agree it would be nice to expose worker plugins, I
don't think we've reached a consensus on
Thanks Randall, updated.
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 6:05 AM Arjun Satish wrote:
>
> hey folks,
>
> Thanks a lot for the KIP and the discussions. Here are a couple of thoughts
> (apologies if I missed some point in this thread).
>
> 1. it seems like we are changing the behavior of /connector-plugins
13 matches
Mail list logo
