Hi, Colin,
Thanks for the update. The proposed change seems reasonable to me. Just one
clarification.
The KIP can show version 0 of certain features with version-mapping
and feature-dependencies. Will that part change? For example, will the tool
show version 0 features with --release-version 3.8 or do we exclude them.
bin/kafka-storage.sh version-mapping --release-version 3.6-IV1
metadata.version=13 (3.6-IV1) transaction.version=0 group.version=0
kraft.version=0
Jun
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 2:19 PM José Armando García Sancio
<jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> Thanks for the update Colin. The changes make sense to me.
>
> Are you planning to update the KIP to reflect this new RPC version? It
> would be good to document the semantics explained above in the KIP.
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 8:22 PM Justine Olshan
> <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > Ok makes sense. I will update my PR.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 5:09 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I think it's better to suppress the response in v3. The issue with
> > > modifying it is that there may be scenarios where [1, 1] is the actual
> > > supported range, and we'd want to know that. But leaving out the
> feature
> > > should be OK for older clients (it will be the case with clients old
> enough
> > > to send a v0, v1, or v2 ApiVersionsRequest anyway)
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Colin
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024, at 16:46, Justine Olshan wrote:
> > > > Thanks Colin,
> > > >
> > > > This makes sense to me. Namely in the case where we perhaps don't
> want to
> > > > support version 0 anymore, we need the range to be able to not
> include 0.
> > > > (In other words, we can't assume 0 is supported)
> > > > It is unfortunate that this change is a bit tricky, but I think it's
> the
> > > > best option.
> > > >
> > > > Can you clarify
> > > >> The server will simply leave out the features whose minimum
> supported
> > > > value is 0 for clients that send v3
> > > >
> > > > For 3.8, I planned to set the 0s in the response to 1. Is it better
> to
> > > > suppress the zero version features in the response so we are
> consistent
> > > > between trunk and 3.8?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Justine
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 4:34 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi all,
> > > >>
> > > >> It seems that there was a bug in older versions of Kafka which
> caused
> > > >> deserialization problems when a supported feature range included 0.
> For
> > > >> example, the range for group.version of [0, 1] would be a problem in
> > > this
> > > >> situation.
> > > >>
> > > >> This obviously makes supportedVersions kind of useless. Any feature
> that
> > > >> doesn't exist today is effectively at v0 today (v0 is equivalent to
> > > "off").
> > > >> But if we can't declare that the server supports [0, 1] or similar,
> we
> > > >> can't declare that it supports the feature being off. Therefore, no
> > > rolling
> > > >> upgrades are possible.
> > > >>
> > > >> We noticed this bug during the 3.8 release when we noticed problems
> in
> > > >> upgrade tests. As an addendum to KIP-1022, we're adding the
> following
> > > >> solution:
> > > >>
> > > >> - There will be a new v4 for ApiVersionsRequest
> > > >>
> > > >> - Clients that sent v4 will promise to correctly handle ranges that
> > > start
> > > >> with 0, such as [0, 1]
> > > >>
> > > >> - The server will simply leave out the features whose minimum
> supported
> > > >> value is 0 for clients that send v3
> > > >>
> > > >> - ApiVersionsRequest v4 will be supported in AK 3.9 and above. AK
> 3.8
> > > will
> > > >> ship with ApiVersionsRequest v3 just as today.
> > > >>
> > > >> thanks,
> > > >> Colin
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, at 11:01, Justine Olshan wrote:
> > > >> > Hey folks,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks everyone! I will go ahead and call it.
> > > >> > The KIP passes with the following +1 votes:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > - Andrew Schofield (non-binding)
> > > >> > - David Jacot (binding)
> > > >> > - José Armando García Sancio (binding)
> > > >> > - Jun Rao (binding)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks again,
> > > >> > Justine
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 11:16 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Hi, Justine,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Thanks for the KIP. +1
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Jun
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 9:13 AM José Armando García Sancio
> > > >> >> <jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > Hi Justine,
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > +1 (binding)
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Thanks for the improvement.
> > > >> >> > --
> > > >> >> > -José
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> -José
>
