On Thu, Jun 3, 2021, at 16:29, Jun Rao wrote: > Hi, Colin, > > Thanks for the KIP. Just a couple of minor comments. >
Hi Jun, Thanks for taking a look. Sorry I just started the vote thread before I saw this! :) > 1. Fields like RemovingReplicas are added as tagged fields in > PartitionChangeRecord, but as non-tagged fields in PartitionRecord. Should > we make them consistent? > I think it makes sense to make them normal fields in PartitionRecord, since they will always be present there. In PartitionChangeRecord, these fields will only be present if they are changing, so it makes sense to make them tagged fields. > 2. Should we add BrokerRegistrationChangeRecord later when it has more > fields than what's already covered in FenceBrokerRecord and > UnfenceBrokerRecord? > Hmm... eventually we want to have the ability to change the broker endpoints dynamically (just like we can do in the ZK-enabled broker). That will certainly belong in BrokerRegistrationChangeRecord. If I add this to the record, does that give enough motivation to add it now rather than later? I like the consistency of having a single change record. best, Colin > Jun > > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:02 AM Colin McCabe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I have posted a KIP about updating the KRaft metadata records for 3.0. > > > > Check it out at : https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/34zOCg > > > > best, > > Colin > > >
