Adding a +1 (binding) from myself.
Thanks to everyone for voting.
I am closing this vote. The KIP is accepted with
3 binding (Gouzhang, Bill, Matthias) and
1 non-binding (John) votes.
Thanks,
Bill
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 9:23 PM John Roesler wrote:
> FWIW, I'm also +1 (non-binding).
>
> Th
FWIW, I'm also +1 (non-binding).
Thanks for tackling this, Bill.
-John
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 3:09 PM Guozhang Wang wrote:
>
> Thanks Bill for the update, I'm +1 as well (binding).
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:25 AM Bill Bejeck wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the comments, Matthias.
> >
> > I don't
Thanks Bill for the update, I'm +1 as well (binding).
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:25 AM Bill Bejeck wrote:
> Thanks for the comments, Matthias.
>
> I don't have a strong preference, so given that Matthias is ok with
> "StreamJoined" and Guozhang seems to prefer "StreamJoined" I'll update the
> KI
Thanks for the comments, Matthias.
I don't have a strong preference, so given that Matthias is ok with
"StreamJoined" and Guozhang seems to prefer "StreamJoined" I'll update the
KIP accordingly.
Thanks,
Bill
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:04 AM Matthias J. Sax
wrote:
> As I mentioned on the DISC
As I mentioned on the DISCUSS thread, it think either `StreamsJoined`
(plural) or `StreamJoin` are good names.
But I am also ok with `StreamJoined` if anyone insist on it. I leave it
up to Bill to pick any of the three variant.
+1 (binding)
-Matthias
On 9/19/19 9:40 AM, John Roesler wrote:
> I'
I'm +1 either way :)
-John
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 5:37 PM Bill Bejeck wrote:
>
> Good catch! I meant to propose the name to be "StreamJoin". I have updated
> the KIP accordingly.
>
> As for the name, I originally had "StreamJoined" and updated it after some
> comments on the KIP.
> I do feel th
Good catch! I meant to propose the name to be "StreamJoin". I have updated
the KIP accordingly.
As for the name, I originally had "StreamJoined" and updated it after some
comments on the KIP.
I do feel that the name "StreamJoin" is better in this case since it is
used to represent a stream join c
Hello Bill,
The KIP's proposal has the code snippet name as "StreamJoined" but the
class name defined is StreamJoin.Which one did you propose? Personally I
think StreamJoined with better aligned with other control objects, but if
you think otherwise is better I can be convinced too :)
Guozhang
All, since we have updated KIP-479
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-479%3A+Add+StreamJoin+config+object+to+Join
and
seem to have completed the discussion for the updates, I'd like to call for
everyone to vote again.
Thanks,
Bill
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:46 AM Bill Bejeck wr
+1 (binding) from myself.
This vote has been open for 7 days now. so I'm closing this vote thread.
KIP-479 had the following votes:
binding +1s: 3 (Guozhang, Matthias, and Bill)
-1 votes: none
Thanks to everyone who voted and participated in the discussion for this
KIP!
-Bill
On Mon, Jul 29,
+1 (binding)
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 7:39 PM Matthias J. Sax
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On 7/25/19 1:05 PM, Bill Bejeck wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > After a great discussion on KIP-479 (
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-479%3A+Add+Materialized+to+Join
> )
> > I'd
> > like to
+1 (binding)
On 7/25/19 1:05 PM, Bill Bejeck wrote:
> All,
>
> After a great discussion on KIP-479 (
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-479%3A+Add+Materialized+to+Join)
> I'd
> like to start a vote.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
All,
After a great discussion on KIP-479 (
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-479%3A+Add+Materialized+to+Join)
I'd
like to start a vote.
Thanks,
Bill
13 matches
Mail list logo
