Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

Hi all, First of all, thanks Onur for fixing this. With regards to where we merge the code, my personal preference would be to merge it to trunk ASAP ((which means that it would be part of 0.10.3.0). Generally, I think we should be conservative when it comes to code merged right before the RC

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

I'm fine if it goes into 0.10.2.0 On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Onur Karaman wrote: > I get where Ewen's coming from but personally, I have trouble understanding > a use case where end users would specifically rely on existing behavior of > group coordination

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

I get where Ewen's coming from but personally, I have trouble understanding a use case where end users would specifically rely on existing behavior of group coordination and offset commits succeeding with nondeterministic RF (which is only later to be manually fixed) during the window of time when

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

So, we have one other blocker bug in system tests that we're trying to make sure can safely be removed, so we've had a bit of slack time with this. Obviously having this all happen very last minute isn't really ideal since it didn't allow enough time to address the feedback -- Stevo's questions

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

I've updated the KIP title to reflect this distinction: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-115%3A+Enforce+offsets.topic.replication.factor+upon+__consumer_offsets+auto+topic+creation On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Onur Karaman wrote: >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

Regarding Joel's comment: > On Jan 25, 2017, at 9:26 PM, Joel Koshy wrote: > > already voted, but one thing worth considering (since this KIP speaks of > *enforcement*) is desired behavior if the topic already exists and the > config != existing RF. > The short answer: The

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

Hi all, +1 (non-binding) for KIP-115. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017, at 04:26, Stevo Slavić wrote: > If I understood well, this KIP is trying to solve for the problem of > offsets.topic.replication.factor not being enforced, particularly in > context of "when you have clients or tooling running as the

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

If I understood well, this KIP is trying to solve for the problem of offsets.topic.replication.factor not being enforced, particularly in context of "when you have clients or tooling running as the cluster is getting setup". Assuming that this problem was observed in production, so in non-testing

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

> On Jan 25, 2017, at 9:26 PM, Joel Koshy wrote: > > already voted, but one thing worth considering (since this KIP speaks of > *enforcement*) is desired behavior if the topic already exists and the > config != existing RF. > Yeah, I'm curious about this too. -James >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

already voted, but one thing worth considering (since this KIP speaks of *enforcement*) is desired behavior if the topic already exists and the config != existing RF. On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Dong Lin wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Ismael Juma

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

As a user, I'd personally rather see this land sooner rather than waiting for a major release... As long as it fails noisily if I don't have enough brokers when it tries to create the topic, then it's easy enough to solve... On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

+1 On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Ismael Juma wrote: > An important question is if this needs to wait for a major release or not. > > Ismael > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > +1 from me too. > > > > Ismael > > > > On Thu, Jan

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

An important question is if this needs to wait for a major release or not. Ismael On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > +1 from me too. > > Ismael > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:07 AM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Since

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

+1 from me too. Ismael On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:07 AM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava wrote: > +1 > > Since this is an unusual one, I think it's worth pointing out that the KIP > notes it is really a bug fix, but since it has compatibility implications > the KIP was worth it. It

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

+1 Since this is an unusual one, I think it's worth pointing out that the KIP notes it is really a bug fix, but since it has compatibility implications the KIP was worth it. It was a sort of intentional bug, but confusing and dangerous. Seems important to fix this ASAP since people are hitting

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

+1 from me. The current behavior seems both surprising and dangerous. -Jason On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Onur Karaman wrote: > Hey everyone. > > I made a bug-fix KIP-115 to enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor: >

[DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

Hey everyone. I made a bug-fix KIP-115 to enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-115%3A+Enforce+offsets.topic.replication.factor Comments are welcome. - Onur