Hey Jun, That's a good question. I think maybe for simplicity, we can have a single config? If that makes sense, I will update the KIP.
Justine On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 3:20 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > Hi, Justine, > > Thanks for the updated KIP. > > One more question related to KIP-1014. It introduced a new > config unstable.metadata.versions.enable. Does each new feature need to > have a corresponding config to enable the testing of unstable features or > should we have a generic config enabling the testing of all unstable > features? > > Jun > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 8:24 PM Justine Olshan <jols...@confluent.io.invalid > > > wrote: > > > I'm hoping this covers the majority of comments. I will go ahead and open > > the vote in the next day or so. > > > > Thanks, > > Justine > > > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 3:31 PM Justine Olshan <jols...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > Find and replace has failed me :( > > > > > > Group version seems a little vague, but we can update it. Hopefully > find > > > and replace won't fail me again, otherwise I will get another email on > > this. > > > > > > Justine > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 12:15 PM David Jacot > <dja...@confluent.io.invalid > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks, Justine. > > >> > > >> * Should we also use `group.version` (GV) as I suggested in my > previous > > >> message in order to be consistent? > > >> * Should we add both names to the `Public Interfaces` section? > > >> * There is still at least one usage of `transaction.protocol.verison` > in > > >> the KIP too. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> David > > >> > > >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 6:29 PM Justine Olshan > > >> <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > I had missed the David's message yesterday about the naming for > > >> transaction > > >> > version vs transaction protocol version. > > >> > > > >> > After some offline discussion with Jun, Artem, and David, we agreed > > that > > >> > transaction version is simpler and conveys more than just protocol > > >> changes > > >> > (flexible records for example) > > >> > > > >> > I will update the KIP as well as KIP-890 > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Justine > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 2:50 PM Justine Olshan <jols...@confluent.io > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Updated! > > >> > > > > >> > > Justine > > >> > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 2:40 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> Hi, Justine, > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Thanks for the reply. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> 21. Sounds good. It would be useful to document that. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> 22. Should we add the IV in "metadata.version=17 has no > > dependencies" > > >> > too? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Jun > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 11:31 AM Justine Olshan > > >> > >> <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Jun, > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > 21. Next producer ID field doesn't need to be populated for TV > 1. > > >> We > > >> > >> don't > > >> > >> > have the same need to retain this since it is written directly > to > > >> the > > >> > >> > transaction log in InitProducerId. It is only needed for > KIP-890 > > >> part > > >> > 2 > > >> > >> / > > >> > >> > TV 2. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > 22. We can do that. > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > Justine > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 10:41 AM Jun Rao > <j...@confluent.io.invalid > > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Hi, Justine, > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks for the reply. > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > 21. What about the new NextProducerId field? Will that be > > >> populated > > >> > >> with > > >> > >> > TV > > >> > >> > > 1? > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > 22. In the dependencies output, should we show both IV and > > level > > >> for > > >> > >> > > metadata.version too? > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Jun > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 4:43 PM Justine Olshan > > >> > >> > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi Jun, > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > 20. I can update the KIP. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > 21. This is used to complete some of the work with KIP-360. > > (We > > >> > use > > >> > >> > > > previous producer ID there, but never persisted it which > was > > in > > >> > the > > >> > >> KIP > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=89068820 > > >> > >> ) > > >> > >> > > > The KIP also mentions including previous epoch but we > > >> explained in > > >> > >> this > > >> > >> > > KIP > > >> > >> > > > how we can figure this out. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > Justine > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 3:56 PM Jun Rao > > >> <j...@confluent.io.invalid> > > >> > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Hi, Justine, > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Thanks for the updated KIP. A couple of more comments. > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > 20. Could we show the output of version-mapping? > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > 21. "Transaction version 1 will include the flexible > fields > > >> in > > >> > the > > >> > >> > > > > transaction state log, and transaction version 2 will > > include > > >> > the > > >> > >> > > changes > > >> > >> > > > > to the transactional protocol as described by KIP-890 > > (epoch > > >> > bumps > > >> > >> > and > > >> > >> > > > > implicit add partitions.)" > > >> > >> > > > > So TV 1 enables the writing of new tagged fields like > > >> > >> > PrevProducerId? > > >> > >> > > > But > > >> > >> > > > > those fields are only usable after the epoch bump, right? > > >> What > > >> > >> > > > > functionality does TV 1 achieve? > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > Jun > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 2:06 PM Justine Olshan > > >> > >> > > > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > I have also updated the KIP to mention the feature > tool's > > >> > >> > --metadata > > >> > >> > > > flag > > >> > >> > > > > > will be deprecated. > > >> > >> > > > > > It will still work for users as they learn the new > flag, > > >> but a > > >> > >> > > warning > > >> > >> > > > > > indicating the alternatives will be shown. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Justine > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:03 AM Justine Olshan < > > >> > >> > > jols...@confluent.io> > > >> > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > For both transaction state and group coordinator > state, > > >> > there > > >> > >> are > > >> > >> > > > only > > >> > >> > > > > > > version 0 records. > > >> > >> > > > > > > KIP-915 introduced flexible versions, but it was > never > > >> put > > >> > to > > >> > >> > use. > > >> > >> > > MV > > >> > >> > > > > has > > >> > >> > > > > > > never gated these. This KIP will do that. I can > include > > >> this > > >> > >> > > context > > >> > >> > > > in > > >> > >> > > > > > the > > >> > >> > > > > > > KIP. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > I'm happy to modify his 1 and 2 to 0 and 1. > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > Justine > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 10:57 AM Jun Rao > > >> > >> > <j...@confluent.io.invalid > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> Hi, David, > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> Thanks for the reply. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> Historically, the format of all records were > > controlled > > >> by > > >> > >> MV. > > >> > >> > > Now, > > >> > >> > > > > > >> records > > >> > >> > > > > > >> in _offset_commit will be controlled by > > >> > >> > > `group.coordinator.version`, > > >> > >> > > > > is > > >> > >> > > > > > >> that right? It would be useful to document that. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> Also, we should align on the version numbering. > > >> > >> "kafka-feature > > >> > >> > > > > disable" > > >> > >> > > > > > >> says "Disable one or more feature flags. This is the > > >> same > > >> > as > > >> > >> > > > > downgrading > > >> > >> > > > > > >> the version to zero". So, in the > > >> > `group.coordinator.version' > > >> > >> > case, > > >> > >> > > > we > > >> > >> > > > > > >> probably should use version 0 for the old consumer > > >> > protocol. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> Jun > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 2:13 AM Andrew Schofield < > > >> > >> > > > > > >> andrew_schofield_j...@outlook.com> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > Hi David, > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > I agree that we should use the same mechanism to > > gate > > >> > >> KIP-932 > > >> > >> > > once > > >> > >> > > > > > that > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > feature reaches production readiness. The precise > > >> details > > >> > >> of > > >> > >> > the > > >> > >> > > > > > values > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > will > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > depend upon the current state of all these flags > > when > > >> > that > > >> > >> > > release > > >> > >> > > > > > >> comes. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > Andrew > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > On 28 Mar 2024, at 07:11, David Jacot > > >> > >> > > > <dja...@confluent.io.INVALID > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > Hi, Jun, Justine, > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > Regarding `group.coordinator.version`, the idea > is > > >> to > > >> > >> use it > > >> > >> > > to > > >> > >> > > > > gate > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > records and APIs of the group coordinator. The > > first > > >> > use > > >> > >> > case > > >> > >> > > > will > > >> > >> > > > > > be > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > KIP-848. We will use version 2 of the flag to > gate > > >> all > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> > new > > >> > >> > > > > > records > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > and > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > the new ConsumerGroupHeartbeat/Describe APIs > > >> present in > > >> > >> AK > > >> > >> > > 3.8. > > >> > >> > > > So > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > version > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > 1 will be the only the old protocol and version > 2 > > >> will > > >> > be > > >> > >> > the > > >> > >> > > > > > >> currently > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > implemented new protocol. I don't think that we > > have > > >> > any > > >> > >> > > > > dependency > > >> > >> > > > > > on > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > the > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > metadata version at the moment. The changes are > > >> > >> orthogonal. > > >> > >> > I > > >> > >> > > > > think > > >> > >> > > > > > >> that > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > we > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > could mention KIP-848 as the first usage of this > > >> flag > > >> > in > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> > > > KIP. > > >> > >> > > > > I > > >> > >> > > > > > >> will > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > also update KIP-848 to include it when this KIP > is > > >> > >> accepted. > > >> > >> > > > > Another > > >> > >> > > > > > >> use > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > case is the Queues KIP. I think that we should > > also > > >> use > > >> > >> this > > >> > >> > > new > > >> > >> > > > > > flag > > >> > >> > > > > > >> to > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > gate it. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > Best, > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > David > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 1:14 AM Jun Rao > > >> > >> > > > <j...@confluent.io.invalid > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> Hi, Justine, > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> Thanks for the reply. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> So, "dependencies" and "version-mapping" will > be > > >> added > > >> > >> to > > >> > >> > > both > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> kafka-feature and kafka-storage? Could we > > document > > >> > that > > >> > >> in > > >> > >> > > the > > >> > >> > > > > tool > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > format > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> section? > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> Jun > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 4:01 PM Justine Olshan > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>> Ok. I can remove the info from the describe > > >> output. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>> Dependencies is needed for the storage tool > > >> because > > >> > we > > >> > >> > want > > >> > >> > > to > > >> > >> > > > > > make > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > sure > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>> the desired versions we are setting will be > > valid. > > >> > >> Version > > >> > >> > > > > mapping > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > should > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>> be for both tools since we have > > --release-version > > >> for > > >> > >> both > > >> > >> > > > > tools. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>> I was considering changing the IV strings, > but I > > >> > wasn't > > >> > >> > sure > > >> > >> > > > if > > >> > >> > > > > > >> there > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> would > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>> be some disagreement with the decision. Not > sure > > >> if > > >> > >> that > > >> > >> > > > breaks > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>> compatibility etc. Happy to hear everyone's > > >> thoughts. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>> Justine > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 3:36 PM Jun Rao > > >> > >> > > > > <j...@confluent.io.invalid > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> Hi, Justine, > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> Thanks for the reply. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> Having "kafka-feature dependencies" seems > > enough > > >> to > > >> > >> me. > > >> > >> > We > > >> > >> > > > > don't > > >> > >> > > > > > >> need > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> to > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> include the dependencies in the output of > > >> > >> "kafka-feature > > >> > >> > > > > > describe". > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> We only support "dependencies" in > > kafka-feature, > > >> not > > >> > >> > > > > > >> kafka-storage. We > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> probably should do the same for > > >> "version-mapping". > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> bin/kafka-features.sh downgrade --feature > > >> > >> > > metadata.version=16 > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> --transaction.protocol.version=2 > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> We need to add the --feature flag for the > > second > > >> > >> feature, > > >> > >> > > > > right? > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> In "kafka-features.sh describe", we only show > > >> the IV > > >> > >> > string > > >> > >> > > > for > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> metadata.version. Should we also show the > level > > >> > >> number? > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> Thanks, > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> Jun > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 1:52 PM Justine > Olshan > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>> I had already included this example > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>> bin/kafka-features.sh downgrade --feature > > >> > >> > > > metadata.version=16 > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>> --transaction.protocol.version=2 // Throws > > >> error if > > >> > >> > > metadata > > >> > >> > > > > > >> version > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>> is < > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>> 16, and this would be an upgrade > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>> But I have updated the KIP to explicitly say > > the > > >> > text > > >> > >> > you > > >> > >> > > > > > >> mentioned. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>> Justine > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 1:41 PM José Armando > > >> García > > >> > >> > Sancio > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>> <jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> Hi Justine, > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> See my comment below. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 1:31 PM Justine > > Olshan > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> The feature command includes the upgrade > or > > >> > >> downgrade > > >> > >> > > > > command > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> along > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>> with > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> the --release-version flag. If some > features > > >> are > > >> > >> not > > >> > >> > > > moving > > >> > >> > > > > in > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> the > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> direction mentioned (upgrade or downgrade) > > the > > >> > >> command > > >> > >> > > > will > > >> > >> > > > > > fail > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> -- > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> perhaps > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>>> with an error of which features were going > > in > > >> the > > >> > >> > wrong > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> direction. > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> How about updating the KIP to show and > > document > > >> > this > > >> > >> > > > > behavior? > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> Thanks, > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> -- > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> -José > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
