minikip : https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1252%3A+AlterConfigPolicy+compatibility+in+legacy+Zookeeper+mode
On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 at 09:54, Edoardo Comar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes - but what would be the deadline to deliver this ? > > On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 at 02:23, Luke Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Chia-Ping, > > > > Adding a new config sounds good to me. > > Usually in minor releases, we don't accept new features, but for ZK support > > in v3.9.x, this could be an exception in my opinion. > > But of course it needs a KIP and community discussion. > > > > @Edoardo, do you think this is acceptable? > > > > Thank you, > > Luke > > > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 8:33 AM Chia-Ping Tsai <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > How about introducing a configuration called > > > alter.config.policy.kraft.compatibility.enable to control this behavior? > > > > > > The default value would be false, meaning nothing changes in 3.9.2. > > > Conversely, setting it to true would align the behavior with KRaft policy > > > validation > > > > > > > Edoardo Comar <[email protected]> 於 2025年12月4日 晚上10:15 寫道： > > > > > > > > Chia-Ping, > > > > I respectfully disagree with such a quick decision. > > > > > > > >> On Thu, 4 Dec 2025 at 02:07, Chia-Ping Tsai <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Long-standing bugs often become features. > > > >> > > > >> Let's keep this behavior for 3.9.2. I recommend updating the > > > documentation > > > >> to explicitly highlight this distinction. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Ismael Juma <[email protected]> 於 2025年12月4日週四 上午6:23寫道： > > > >> > > > >>> Thanks for starting the discussion. Given that this behavior has > > > existed > > > >>> for so long, I would be reluctant to change it in a patch release for > > > 3.9.x > > > >>> unless there is strong demand from the community. > > > >>> > > > >>> Ismael > > > >>> > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 6:18 AM PoAn Yang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hi developers, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I'd like to initiate a discussion regarding the AlterConfigPolicy in > > > >>>> version 3.9.2. > > > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-19026 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The key issue is the difference in behavior for OpType.SUBTRACT and > > > >>>> OpType.APPEND between KRaft and ZK modes. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> In KRaft mode, AlterConfigPolicy#validate receives the modified > > > >>>> RequestMetadata. > > > >>>> In ZK mode, it receives the original user input. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> We can observe this difference by looking at the OpType.SUBTRACT > > > example > > > >>>> provided in the attachments: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/13075589/KAFKA19026Test.java > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/13075585/KAFKA19026Policy.java > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Example Output in KRaft Mode: > > > >>>> AlterConfigPolicy.RequestMetadata(resource=ConfigResource(type=BROKER, > > > >>>> name='0'), configs={ssl.cipher.suites=}). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Example Output in ZK Mode: > > > >>>> AlterConfigPolicy.RequestMetadata(resource=ConfigResource(type=BROKER, > > > >>>> name='0'), configs={ssl.cipher.suites=foo}). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The ZK behavior has been in place since 2.3.1. Therefore, I want to > > > check > > > >>>> if the community wants to align this behavior in 3.9.2. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/blob/2.3.1/core/src/main/scala/kafka/server/AdminManager.scala#L462-L479 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> If this is considered a behavioral change, it might be risky to > > > include > > > >>> in > > > >>>> a patch version (3.9.2). However, if it's classified as a bug, then > > > >>>> we > > > >>>> should proceed with the fix in 3.9.2. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Feel free to share your opinions. Thank you! > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Best regards, > > > >>>> PoAn > > > >>> > > >
