Bump up this thread so that we could reach consensus earlier. Given that we
got concern related to this, I think it is ideal to release 1.1.x/1.0.x
with making decision and applying the change if we want.

2018년 1월 30일 (화) 오전 9:25, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]>님이 작성:

> Erik's concern brought from 1.0.6 RC1, because they can't use Storm 1.1.0
> or higher (Storm 1.1.0 broke storm-mesos.). While he could take an
> workaround to use storm-kafka-client 1.2.0 or 1.1.2 (if we decide to
> replace) with Storm 1.0.6, it would be better if we don't allow leaving
> storm-kafka-client in 1.0.x in inconsistent state.
>
> IMHO, breaking backward compatibility is worse, but leaving broken thing
> is worst. Hence I'm +1 to replace all, with noticing that it may bring
> backward incompatibility in release announce.
>
> -Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>
> 2018년 1월 30일 (화) 오전 4:49, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]>님이 작성:
>
>> As I mentioned else thread I’m open to this but would defer to community
>> consensus.
>>
>> If there’s concern about doing this for 1.0.x, one option would be skip
>> that version line and only apply it to 1.2.0 and 1.1.x.
>>
>> -Taylor
>>
>> > On Jan 29, 2018, at 12:12 AM, Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi devs,
>> >
>> > This is initial post to separate out discussion topic from vote thread,
>> and
>> > continue discussing.
>> >
>> > Background of the topic:
>> > 1. Only 1.x-branch of storm-kafka-client got stabilized. (relatively)
>> > 2. We would avoid to port back patches to 1.1.x and 1.0.x because
>> they're
>> > diverged too much.
>> >
>> > Downside:
>> > Backward compatibility might be broken for 1.1.x and 1.0.x. Not sure for
>> > 1.1.x, but at least 1.0.x, since supported Kafka client version is
>> > different, and if my memory is right, we already applied backward
>> > incompatible change into storm-kafka-client 1.1.0.
>> >
>> > Please put your opinion regarding topic. You're encouraged to copy your
>> > previous post in vote thread which helps to centralize opinions in
>> current
>> > thread.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
>>
>>

Reply via email to