Jose, thanks for the heads up on the 3 new blocker candidates. I read the tickets and they have clear descriptions and implementation details. However, at this stage to be able to make a call and approve new blockers I'd appreciate it if we could get some insight regarding the risk and the necessity of a fix. A rough ETA would also be helpful.
Having said that, based on the descriptions and the existence of a few other blockers, I'm tentatively approving KAFKA-13161, KAFKA-13165, and KAFKA-13168 and we might have to make a new assessment if these are the only blockers in the next few days or if we notice a regression during testing. Konstantine On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 10:04 AM Konstantine Karantasis < kkaranta...@apache.org> wrote: > > Thanks for reporting this new issue Ryan, > > It's important and this issue seems to have clearly regressed dynamic > default configs in the 3.0 branch. > So, it's approved. > > Konstantine > > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 4:34 PM José Armando García Sancio > <jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> For the KIP-500 work for 3.0 we would like to propose the following >> Jiras as blockers: >> >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13168 >> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13165 >> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13161 >> >> The description for each Jira should have more details. >> >> Thanks, >> -Jose >> >> On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:14 PM Ryan Dielhenn >> <rdielh...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Konstantine, >> > >> > I would like to report another bug in KRaft. >> > >> > The ConfigHandler that processes dynamic broker config deltas in KRaft >> > expects that the default resource name for dynamic broker configs is the >> > old default entity name used in ZK: "<default>". Since dynamic default >> > broker configs are persisted as empty string in the quorum instead of >> > "<default>", the brokers are not updating the their default >> configuration >> > when they see empty string as a resource name in the config delta and >> are >> > throwing a NumberFormatException when they try to parse the resource >> name >> > to process it as a per-broker configuration. >> > >> > I filed a JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13160 >> > >> > I also have a PR to fix this: >> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11168 >> > >> > I think that this should be a blocker for 3.0 because dynamic default >> > broker configs will not be usable in KRaft otherwise. >> > >> > Best, >> > Ryan Dielhenn >> > >> > On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 10:42 AM Konstantine Karantasis < >> > kkaranta...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > Thanks Ryan, >> > > >> > > Approved. Seems also like a low risk fix. >> > > With that opportunity, let's make sure there are no other configs that >> > > would need a similar validation. >> > > >> > > Konstantine >> > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 8:33 AM Ryan Dielhenn >> > > <rdielh...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hey Konstantine, >> > > > >> > > > Thanks for the question. If these configs are not validated the >> user's >> > > > experience will be affected and upgrades from 3.0 will be harder. >> > > > >> > > > Best, >> > > > Ryan Dielhenn >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 3:59 PM Konstantine Karantasis < >> > > > kkaranta...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Thanks for reporting this issue Ryan. >> > > > > >> > > > > I believe what you mention corresponds to the ticket you created >> here: >> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/KAFKA/issues/KAFKA-13151 >> > > > > >> > > > > What happens if the configurations are present but the broker >> doesn't >> > > > fail >> > > > > at startup when configured to run in KRaft mode? >> > > > > Asking to see if we have any workarounds in our availability. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > Konstantine >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:51 PM Ryan Dielhenn >> > > > > <rdielh...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Disregard log.clean.policy being included in this blocker. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Best, >> > > > > > Ryan Dielhenn >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:38 PM Ryan Dielhenn < >> > > rdielh...@confluent.io> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hey Konstantine, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I'd like to report another bug in KRaft. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > log.cleanup.policy, alter.config.policy.class.name, and >> > > > > > > create.topic.policy.class.name are all unsupported by KRaft >> but >> > > > KRaft >> > > > > > > servers allow them to be configured. I believe this should be >> > > > > considered >> > > > > > a >> > > > > > > blocker and that KRaft servers should fail startup if any of >> these >> > > > are >> > > > > > > configured. I do not have a PR yet but will soon. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On another note, I have a PR for the dynamic broker >> configuration >> > > fix >> > > > > > > here: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11141 >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best, >> > > > > > > Ryan Dielhenn >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 2:48 PM Konstantine Karantasis >> > > > > > > <konstant...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi all, >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> Please find below the updated release plan for the Apache >> Kafka >> > > > 3.0.0 >> > > > > > >> release. >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=177046466 >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> New suggested dates for the release are as follows: >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> KIP Freeze is 09 June 2021 (same date as in the initial plan) >> > > > > > >> Feature Freeze is 30 June 2021 (new date, extended by two >> weeks) >> > > > > > >> Code Freeze is 14 July 2021 (new date, extended by two weeks) >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> At least two weeks of stabilization will follow Code Freeze. >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> The release plan is up to date and currently includes all the >> > > > approved >> > > > > > >> KIPs >> > > > > > >> that are targeting 3.0.0. >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> Please let me know if you have any objections with the recent >> > > > > extension >> > > > > > of >> > > > > > >> Feature Freeze and Code Freeze or any other concerns. >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> Regards, >> > > > > > >> Konstantine >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> -- >> -Jose >> >
