Hi all, the vote passes with:
- 4 binding votes: Colin, Chris, Greg and myself - 1 non-binding vote: Anton Thanks everyone for the discussion and feedback! Best, On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 11:08 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Based on some of the offline discussions we had, people generally feel > that major/minor releases have a large enough overhead that they don't want > them more frequently than every 4 months. (Obviously dot releases are a > different story) So Josep and I didn't want to raise the issue here. > > I also feel that 4 months should be enough (for anyone? :) ) But I'm > always an optimist. > > best, > Colin > > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024, at 13:03, Chris Egerton wrote: > > Hi Colin, > > > > The idea isn't to hold up 4.0.0 any longer; in fact, it's the opposite. > If > > things slip a bit with 3.8.0 and we take, for example, an extra month to > > deliver it (or even to cut the branch), I don't think this should > > necessarily translate to an extra month of latency between now and 4.0.0, > > given exactly what you mention about the major changes we plan to include > > in 4.0.0 (which consist more of dropping support for existing things than > > adding support for new things). > > > > If we want to avoid confusion, we could say something like "no later > than 3 > > to 4 months after the 3.8 branch is created". Frankly though, I think > it's > > unnecessary to specify an exact timeline for 4.0 in this KIP, since > nothing > > in the proposal actually diverges from the usual time-based release plan > we > > follow. The only necessary part seems to be to state that 4.0 will > directly > > follow 3.8 (as opposed to 3.9, 3.10, etc.). But perhaps I'm missing > > something? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris > > > > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 2:38 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024, at 09:05, Chris Egerton wrote: > >> > Hi Josep, > >> > > >> > Thanks for the KIP! +1 (binding). > >> > > >> > One small nit: I don't think we necessarily have to hold ourselves to > >> > releasing 4.0.0 "3 to 4 months after 3.8 branch is created" (quoting > the > >> > timeline section of the KIP). IMO it's fine to leave some wiggle room > for > >> > the 4.0.0 release without codifying a timeline in this KIP. Maybe > >> something > >> > like "some time after 3.8 branch is created" would be sufficient? > >> Anyways, > >> > not a huge thing, I'm sure we'll all give 4.0.0 the flexibility it > needs > >> > with the understanding that this KIP is more focused on 3.8.0 than > 4.0.0. > >> > > >> > >> Hmm... I don't see any obstacles in the path of releasing 4.0 after the > >> traditional 4 months of development. Keep in mind, we're removing things > >> from the code (the ability to support JDK8, ZooKeeper mode, etc.), not > >> adding things. We already support JDK11 so saying that it's the minimum > is > >> a very quick change. Similarly, we already support KRaft so saying that > >> it's the only mode should be a pretty quick change. > >> > >> Also, we added a note that "the timeline is very rough" to KIP-833 and > it > >> caued all kinds of confusion. So overall I'd prefer to leave the > language > >> about 4.0 unchanged. > >> > >> best, > >> Colin > >> > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > > >> > Chris > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 11:41 AM Greg Harris > <greg.har...@aiven.io.invalid > >> > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Thanks Josep for leading the KIP and building consensus on 3.8! > >> >> > >> >> +1 (binding) > >> >> > >> >> Greg > >> >> > >> >> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 11:45 PM Josep Prat > <josep.p...@aiven.io.invalid > >> > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > Hi all, > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks for your comments, > >> >> > I reworded some parts of the KIP to express that: > >> >> > - The KIP is to agree that we need at least one more minor version > in > >> the > >> >> > 3.x series > >> >> > - Explicitly saying that the list of KIPs is not exhaustive and > that > >> if > >> >> > some are not done, we would need another minor version > >> >> > - Which are the KIPs/Features the community identified that should > be > >> >> > present in a 3.x version so they can safely migrate to a potential > 4.0 > >> >> > version > >> >> > - The timeline of 4.0 (starting after branching, not after release) > >> >> > - Wording is now focusing more on the need to have at least another > >> minor > >> >> > release in 3.x to enable and ease migration to a potential 4.0 > version > >> >> > > >> >> > I always mention potential in terms of 4.0 as we don't know what > will > >> be > >> >> in > >> >> > there yet, and this KIP's scope is not meant to define this. > >> >> > > >> >> > Best, > >> >> > > >> >> > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 10:46 PM Ismael Juma <m...@ismaeljuma.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > I agree with Colin. Also, 4.0 would be started after 3.8 is > branched > >> >> (not > >> >> > > after 3.8.0 is released). The rest looks good. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Thanks! > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Ismael > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 11:27 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Hi, > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Thanks for calling the vote, Josep. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > I re-checked this, and saw something that we missed updating. > One > >> >> thing > >> >> > > we > >> >> > > > talked about earlier is that KIP-966 is actually not required > for > >> >> 3.8. > >> >> > > What > >> >> > > > is required is some way of enabling unclean leader election by > >> >> default in > >> >> > > > KRaft. (Which could be KIP-966, or something else). Please > revise > >> >> this. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > best, > >> >> > > > Colin > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024, at 02:50, Anton Agestam wrote: > >> >> > > > > +1 from me. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Den fre 5 jan. 2024 kl 10:33 skrev Josep Prat > >> >> > > > <josep.p...@aiven.io.invalid>: > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >> Hi all, > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> I'd like to start a vote on KIP-1012: > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1012%3A+The+need+for+a+Kafka+3.8.x+release > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> Discussion thread is here: > >> >> > > > >> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/kvdp2gmq5gd9txkvxh5vk3z2n55b04s5 > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> Thanks! > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > >> --- > >> >> > > > >> Josep Prat > >> >> > > > >> Open Source Engineering Director, aivenjosep.p...@aiven.io > | > >> >> > > > >> +491715557497 | aiven.io > >> >> > > > >> Aiven Deutschland GmbH > >> >> > > > >> Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin > >> >> > > > >> Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > >> >> > > > >> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > >> >> > > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > [image: Aiven] <https://www.aiven.io> > >> >> > > >> >> > *Josep Prat* > >> >> > Open Source Engineering Director, *Aiven* > >> >> > josep.p...@aiven.io | +491715557497 > >> >> > aiven.io <https://www.aiven.io> | < > >> >> https://www.facebook.com/aivencloud> > >> >> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/aiven/> < > >> >> https://twitter.com/aiven_io> > >> >> > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* > >> >> > Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin > >> >> > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > >> >> > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > >> >> > >> > -- [image: Aiven] <https://www.aiven.io> *Josep Prat* Open Source Engineering Director, *Aiven* josep.p...@aiven.io | +491715557497 aiven.io <https://www.aiven.io> | <https://www.facebook.com/aivencloud> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/aiven/> <https://twitter.com/aiven_io> *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B
