+1 On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 at 04:32 Vahid S Hashemian <vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> +1 on 0.11.0.0. > > Can we also include KIP-54 to the list? > The PR for this KIP is ready for review. > > Thanks. > --Vahid > > > > > > From: Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> > To: dev@kafka.apache.org > Date: 02/27/2017 07:47 PM > Subject: [DISCUSS] 0.10.3.0/0.11.0.0 release planning > Sent by: isma...@gmail.com > > > > Hi all, > > With 0.10.2.0 out of the way, I would like to volunteer to be the release > manager for our next time-based release. See https://cwiki.apache.org/c > onfluence/display/KAFKA/Time+Based+Release+Plan > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Time+Based+Release+Plan> > if you missed previous > communication on time-based releases or need a reminder. > > I put together a draft release plan with June 2017 as the release month > (as > previously agreed) and a list of KIPs that have already been voted: > > *https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=68716876 > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=68716876 > >* > > I haven't set exact dates for the various stages (feature freeze, code > freeze, etc.) for now as Ewen is going to send out an email with some > suggested tweaks based on his experience as release manager for 0.10.2.0. > We can set the exact dates after that discussion. > > As we are starting the process early this time, we should expect the > number > of KIPs in the plan to grow (so don't worry if your KIP is not there yet), > but it's good to see that we already have 10 (including 2 merged and 2 > with > PR reviews in progress). > > Out of the KIPs listed, KIP-98 (Exactly-once and Transactions) and KIP-101 > (Leader Generation in Replication) require message format changes, which > typically imply a major version bump (i.e. 0.11.0.0). If we do that, then > it makes sense to also include KIP-106 (Unclean leader election should be > false by default) and KIP-118 (Drop support for Java 7). We would also > take > the chance to remove deprecated code, in that case. > > Given the above, how do people feel about 0.11.0.0 as the next Kafka > version? Please share your thoughts. > > Thanks, > Ismael > > > > >
