Re: KIP-121 [VOTE]: Add KStream peek method

KIP is accepted, discussion now moves to PR. Thanks Eno On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Steven Schlansker < sschlans...@opentable.com> wrote: > Oops, sorry, a number of votes were sent only to -dev and not to > -user and so I missed those in the email I just sent. The actual count is > more

Re: KIP-121 [VOTE]: Add KStream peek method

Thanks Ismael. The KIP voting has been accepted with 4 binding +1, and 5 non-binding +1s. Guozhang On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Ismael Juma wrote: > +1 (binding) from me. > > For the record, there were 4 binding +1s (Gwen, Guozhang, Jay and myself). > > Ismael > > On

Re: KIP-121 [VOTE]: Add KStream peek method

+1 (binding) from me. For the record, there were 4 binding +1s (Gwen, Guozhang, Jay and myself). Ismael On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Steven Schlansker < sschlans...@opentable.com> wrote: > From reading the bylaws it's not entirely clear who closes the vote or how > they > decide when to do

Re: KIP-121 [VOTE]: Add KStream peek method

Oops, sorry, a number of votes were sent only to -dev and not to -user and so I missed those in the email I just sent. The actual count is more like +8 > On Feb 15, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Steven Schlansker > wrote: > > From reading the bylaws it's not entirely clear

Re: KIP-121 [VOTE]: Add KStream peek method

From reading the bylaws it's not entirely clear who closes the vote or how they decide when to do so. Given a week has passed and assuming Jay's and Matthias's votes are binding, we have a result of +4 votes with no other votes cast. I'll update the KIP with the result shortly :) > On Feb 14,

Re: KIP-121 [VOTE]: Add KStream peek method

+1 -Zakee > On Feb 14, 2017, at 1:56 PM, Jay Kreps wrote: > > +1 > > Nice improvement. > > -Jay > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Steven Schlansker < > sschlans...@opentable.com> wrote: > >> Hi, it looks like I have 2 of the 3 minimum votes, can a third voter >>

Re: KIP-121 [VOTE]: Add KStream peek method

+1 Nice improvement. -Jay On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Steven Schlansker < sschlans...@opentable.com> wrote: > Hi, it looks like I have 2 of the 3 minimum votes, can a third voter > please consider this KIP? > Thanks. > > (PS - new revision on GitHub PR with hopefully the last round of >

Re: KIP-121 [VOTE]: Add KStream peek method

Hi, it looks like I have 2 of the 3 minimum votes, can a third voter please consider this KIP? Thanks. (PS - new revision on GitHub PR with hopefully the last round of improvements) > On Feb 8, 2017, at 9:06 PM, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > > +1 > > On 2/8/17 4:51 PM, Gwen

Re: KIP-121 [VOTE]: Add KStream peek method

+1 On 2/8/17 4:51 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Steven Schlansker > wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> Thank you for constructive feedback on KIP-121, >> KStream.peek(ForeachAction) ; >> it seems like it is time to call a

Re: KIP-121 [VOTE]: Add KStream peek method

+1 (binding) On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Steven Schlansker wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Thank you for constructive feedback on KIP-121, KStream.peek(ForeachAction V>) ; > it seems like it is time to call a vote which I hope will pass easily :) > >

KIP-121 [VOTE]: Add KStream peek method

Hi everyone, Thank you for constructive feedback on KIP-121, KStream.peek(ForeachAction) ; it seems like it is time to call a vote which I hope will pass easily :) https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-121%3A+Add+KStream+peek+method I believe the PR attached is already in