OK - my mistake was mistaken! There is consensus. This KIP has been
accepted.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 6:48 PM Ben Stopford wrote:
> Sorry - my mistake. Looks like I still need one more binding vote. Is
> there a committer out there that could add their vote?
>
> B
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 6:4
Sorry - my mistake. Looks like I still need one more binding vote. Is there
a committer out there that could add their vote?
B
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 6:44 PM Ben Stopford wrote:
> So I believe we can mark this as Accepted. I've updated the KIP page.
> Thanks for the input everyone.
>
> On Fri,
So I believe we can mark this as Accepted. I've updated the KIP page.
Thanks for the input everyone.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:31 AM Ben Stopford wrote:
> Thanks Joel. I'll fix up the pics to make them consistent on nomenclature.
>
>
> B
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:39 AM Joel Koshy wrote:
>
> (
Thanks Joel. I'll fix up the pics to make them consistent on nomenclature.
B
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:39 AM Joel Koshy wrote:
> (adding the dev list back - as it seems to have gotten dropped earlier in
> this thread)
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Joel Koshy wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > This i
(adding the dev list back - as it seems to have gotten dropped earlier in
this thread)
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Joel Koshy wrote:
> +1
>
> This is a very well-written KIP!
> Minor: there is still a mix of terms in the doc that references the
> earlier LeaderGenerationRequest (which is wha
+1
This is a very well-written KIP!
Minor: there is still a mix of terms in the doc that references the earlier
LeaderGenerationRequest (which is what I'm assuming what it was called in
previous versions of the wiki). Same for the diagrams which I'm guessing
are a little harder to make consistent
Hi, Ben,
Thanks for the updated KIP. +1
1) In OffsetForLeaderEpochResponse, start_offset probably should be
end_offset since it's the end offset of that epoch.
3) That's fine. We can fix KAFKA-1120 separately.
Jun
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Ben Stopford wrote:
> Hi Jun
>
> Thanks for r
Hi Jun
Thanks for raising these points. Thorough as ever!
1) Changes made as requested.
2) Done.
3) My plan for handing returning leaders is to simply to force the Leader
Epoch to increment if a leader returns. I don't plan to fix KAFKA-1120 as
part of this KIP. It is really a separate issue with
Hi, Ben,
Thanks for the proposal. Looks good overall. A few comments below.
1. For LeaderEpochRequest, we need to include topic right? We probably want
to follow other requests by nesting partition inside topic? For
LeaderEpochResponse,
do we need to return leader_epoch? I was thinking that we co
+1
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote:
> +1 - thanks for tackling those old and painful bugs!
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Ben Stopford wrote:
> > Hi All
> >
> > We’re having some problems with this thread being subsumed by the
> [Discuss] thread. Hopefully this one will
+1 - thanks for tackling those old and painful bugs!
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Ben Stopford wrote:
> Hi All
>
> We’re having some problems with this thread being subsumed by the [Discuss]
> thread. Hopefully this one will appear distinct. If you see more than one,
> please use this one.
>
Looks good to me!
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Ben Stopford wrote:
> Hi All
>
> We’re having some problems with this thread being subsumed by the
> [Discuss] thread. Hopefully this one will appear distinct. If you see more
> than one, please use this one.
>
> KIP-101 should
Hi All
We’re having some problems with this thread being subsumed by the [Discuss]
thread. Hopefully this one will appear distinct. If you see more than one,
please use this one.
KIP-101 should now be ready for a vote. As a reminder the KIP proposes a change
to the replication protocol to rem
13 matches
Mail list logo
