Thanks Ismael.
The vote passes after 12 days with the following +1s:
- Ryanne Dolan
- Dongjin Lee
- Randall Hauch (binding)
- Tom Bentley (binding)
- Gwen Shapira (binding)
Thanks to all who voted and provided feedback.
I'd also like to thank to Gregory Harris, who has been invaluable as an
Chris updated the KIP to explain that this new Admin API behaves the same
as `Producer.initTransactions`, so that seems fine to me (i.e. I withdraw
my concern). I didn't review the whole KIP and since there are enough
votes, I'll leave it to you all.
Ismael
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 5:59 AM Chris
Hi Ismael,
Friendly reminder that your comment is the only outstanding one. If I don't
hear back soon I'll probably close the KIP and we can address any concerns
in a follow-up KIP.
Cheers,
Chris
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 12:13 PM Chris Egerton wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Firstly, thanks for the
Hi all,
Firstly, thanks for the votes!
Secondly--Ismael, in response to your feedback, I have to admit I'm a
little in the dark here. Are you suggesting that there be a new Kafka API
for the act of fencing out a producer with a given transactional ID (or set
of transactional IDs)? If so, can you
One concern I have is that we are not introducing a request for the fencing
and implementing that logic in the admin client directly. I would prefer a
request in the txn coordinator with the right semantics.
Ismael
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021, 7:46 AM Gwen Shapira
wrote:
> I'm supportive of the
I'm supportive of the feature and the interface details discussed in the
discussion thread. I just want to clarify that I'm voting for the last
version discussed in the thread - that includes two phase upgrade and no
breaking changes in 3.0.
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, 5:32 AM Chris
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the KIP and the discussion.
+1 (binding)
Kind regards,
Tom
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 4:15 AM Randall Hauch wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> I still have a few minor questions/suggestions about wording (e.g., in
> JavaDoc), but those can be handled via the discussion thread and
+1 (binding)
I still have a few minor questions/suggestions about wording (e.g., in
JavaDoc), but those can be handled via the discussion thread and won't
change the intent of those API methods or the KIP.
Best regards,
Randall
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 7:32 AM Chris Egerton
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
Hi all,
Friendly reminder that the KIP freeze is today; please cast your votes if
you'd like to see this feature introduced in time for 3.0.
Cheers,
Chris
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 1:49 AM Dongjin Lee wrote:
> +1 (non-binding).
>
> Thanks,
> Dongjin
>
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 2:35 PM Ryanne
+1 (non-binding).
Thanks,
Dongjin
On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 2:35 PM Ryanne Dolan wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021, 10:23 AM Chris Egerton
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'd like to call for a vote on KIP-618, which adds support for
> exactly-once
> > delivery guarantees for
+1 (non-binding)
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021, 10:23 AM Chris Egerton
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to call for a vote on KIP-618, which adds support for exactly-once
> delivery guarantees for source connectors in the Kafka Connect framework.
>
> I suspect there might be a little more discussion to be
Hi all,
I'd like to call for a vote on KIP-618, which adds support for exactly-once
delivery guarantees for source connectors in the Kafka Connect framework.
I suspect there might be a little more discussion to be had but with the
KIP freeze deadline approaching, I wanted to give anyone
12 matches
Mail list logo
