Any other input on this? Otherwise Vahid what do you think about moving this to a vote?
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Jeff Widman <j...@jeffwidman.com> wrote: > Any other feedback from folks on KIP-211? > > A prime benefit of this KIP is that it removes the need for the consumer > to commit offsets for partitions where the offset hasn't changed. Right > now, if the consumer doesn't commit those offsets, they will be deleted, so > the consumer keeps blindly (re)committing duplicate offsets, wasting > network/disk I/O. > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Jeff Widman <j...@jeffwidman.com> wrote: > >> I support this as the proposed change seems both more intuitive and >> safer. >> >> Right now we've essentially hacked this at my day job by bumping the >> offset retention period really high, but this is a much cleaner solution. >> >> I don't have any use-cases that require custom retention periods on a >> per-group basis. >> >> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Vahid S Hashemian < >> vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> >>> Bump! >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Vahid S Hashemian/Silicon Valley/IBM >>> To: dev <dev@kafka.apache.org> >>> Date: 10/18/2017 04:45 PM >>> Subject: [DISCUSS] KIP-211: Revise Expiration Semantics of >>> Consumer >>> Group Offsets >>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I created a KIP to address the group offset expiration issue reported in >>> KAFKA-4682: >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-211%3A >>> +Revise+Expiration+Semantics+of+Consumer+Group+Offsets >>> >>> Your feedback is welcome! >>> >>> Thanks. >>> --Vahid >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Jeff Widman* >> jeffwidman.com <http://www.jeffwidman.com/> | 740-WIDMAN-J (943-6265) >> <>< >> > > > > -- > > *Jeff Widman* > jeffwidman.com <http://www.jeffwidman.com/> | 740-WIDMAN-J (943-6265) > <>< > -- *Jeff Widman* jeffwidman.com <http://www.jeffwidman.com/> | 740-WIDMAN-J (943-6265) <><
