+1 I don't think this solves all the stickiness/incremental rebalancing problems we'll eventually want to address, but it's a nice improvement, would be a benefit for a fair number of applications, and as it's a clean extension to the existing options it doesn't come with any significant compatibility concerns.
(Also, this should bump this thread, which Jeff Widman was wondering about. It's lacking at least 1 more binding vote before it could pass.) -Ewen On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 > > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:16 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > >> +1 (non-binding) > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks for the KIP. +1 from me. > >> > > >> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Vahid S Hashemian < > >> > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi all, > >> > > > >> > > Thanks for providing feedback on this KIP so far. > >> > > The KIP was discussed during the KIP meeting today and there doesn't > >> seem > >> > > to be any unaddressed issue at this point. > >> > > > >> > > So I would like to initiate the voting process. > >> > > > >> > > The KIP can be found here: > >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > >> > > 54+-+Sticky+Partition+Assignment+Strategy > >> > > And the full discussion thread is here: > >> > > https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@kafka.apache.org/msg47607.html > >> > > > >> > > Thanks. > >> > > --Vahid > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Regards, > >> > >> Rajini > >> >
