Hi Jun, Q2: For the group.coordinator.rebalance.protocols and process.roles configurations, setting them to an empty value is invalid—the broker/controller will fail to start in such cases. Therefore, I believe it's safe to assume that no users would configure them this way, and we can reasonably choose not to handle this edge case.
> Regarding "The none policy will not delete or compact any segments", we > should be more accurate. We won't delete segments based on > log.retention.bytes/log.retention.ms, but we should continue to delete > segments based on log.local.retention.bytes/log.retention.ms. Otherwise, we > risk running out of local disk space when remote storage is enabled. Update the document in KIP. Best Regards, Jiunn-Yang > Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.INVALID> 於 2025年4月23日 清晨6:32 寫道： > > Hi, Jiunn-Yang, > > Regarding "The none policy will not delete or compact any segments", we > should be more accurate. We won't delete segments based on > log.retention.bytes/log.retention.ms, but we should continue to delete > segments based on log.local.retention.bytes/log.retention.ms. Otherwise, we > risk running out of local disk space when remote storage is enabled. > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 9:45 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > >> Hi, Jiunn-Yang, >> >> Thanks for the reply. >> >> Q2. What about existing empty values for >> group.coordinator.rebalance.protocols and process.roles during upgrade? >> >> Jun >> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 7:29 AM 黃竣陽 <s7133...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello Jun, >>> >>> Thanks for review this KIP. >>> >>> Q1 & Q3: >>> I’ve updated the method name accordingly and revised the cleanup.policy >>> documentation >>> to clarify that the none policy cannot be used with any other policy. >>> >>> Q2: >>> For users currently using an empty cleanup.policy, the approach is to >>> apply the none policy >>> during the preProcessParsedConfig step. Additionally, a warning message >>> will be emitted to inform users >>> of the upcoming change. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Jiunn-Yang >>> >>>> Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.INVALID> 於 2025年4月22日 凌晨4:52 寫道： >>>> >>>> Hi, Jiunn-Yang, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the KIP. A few comments. >>>> >>>> 1. It's fine to introduce a new value None for cleanup.policy. But now >>> not >>>> all value combinations are valid. For example, None can't be used with >>>> Delete or Compact. It would be useful to document that. >>>> 2. What's the behavior during upgrade when an existing config has an >>> empty >>>> list. >>>> 3. inWithEmptyCheck: It's not clear what the empty check does. How about >>>> sth like inNonEmpty ? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Jun >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 8:25 AM 黃竣陽 <s7133...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>> >>>>> I would like to start a discussion on KIP-1161: cleanup.policy >>> shouldn't >>>>> be empty >>>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/HArXF> >>>>> >>>>> This proposal aims to improve the cleanup.policy configuration. >>> Currently, >>>>> this setting should not be left empty. >>>>> Therefore, there are two proposed improvements: >>>>> 1. Update ValidList to validate whether an empty list is allowed. >>>>> 2. Introduce a new 'none' value for cleanup.policy. >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> Jiunn-Yang >>> >>>
