Re: [VOTE] KIP-960: Support single-key_single-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores
Thanks to Matthias, Bruno, Lucas, and Walker for voting. So I consider this KIP accepted. Cheers, Alieh On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 9:26 AM Lucas Brutschy wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Thanks for the KIP! > > Cheers, > Lucas > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 7:55 PM Walker Carlson > wrote: > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > Thanks for the kip Alieh! > > > > Walker > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 3:52 AM Bruno Cadonna > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, Alieh! > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > Best, > > > Bruno > > > > > > On 10/10/23 1:14 AM, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > > > > One more nit: as discussed on the related KIP-698 thread, we should > not > > > > use `get` as prefix for the getters. > > > > > > > > So it should be `K key()` and `Optional asOfTimestamp()`. > > > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise the KIP LGTM. > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > On 10/6/23 2:50 AM, Alieh Saeedi wrote: > > > >> Hi everyone, > > > >> > > > >> Since KIP-960 is reduced to the simplest IQ type and all further > > > comments > > > >> are related to the following-up KIPs, I decided to finalize it at > this > > > >> point. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> A huge thank you to everyone who has reviewed this KIP (and also the > > > >> following-up ones), and > > > >> participated in the discussion thread! > > > >> > > > >> I'd also like to thank you in advance for taking the time to vote. > > > >> > > > >> Best, > > > >> Alieh > > > >> > > > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-960: Support single-key_single-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores
+1 (binding) Thanks for the KIP! Cheers, Lucas On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 7:55 PM Walker Carlson wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > Thanks for the kip Alieh! > > Walker > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 3:52 AM Bruno Cadonna wrote: > > > Thanks for the KIP, Alieh! > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > Best, > > Bruno > > > > On 10/10/23 1:14 AM, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > > > One more nit: as discussed on the related KIP-698 thread, we should not > > > use `get` as prefix for the getters. > > > > > > So it should be `K key()` and `Optional asOfTimestamp()`. > > > > > > > > > Otherwise the KIP LGTM. > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > On 10/6/23 2:50 AM, Alieh Saeedi wrote: > > >> Hi everyone, > > >> > > >> Since KIP-960 is reduced to the simplest IQ type and all further > > comments > > >> are related to the following-up KIPs, I decided to finalize it at this > > >> point. > > >> > > >> > > >> A huge thank you to everyone who has reviewed this KIP (and also the > > >> following-up ones), and > > >> participated in the discussion thread! > > >> > > >> I'd also like to thank you in advance for taking the time to vote. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Alieh > > >> > >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-960: Support single-key_single-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores
+1 (binding) Thanks for the kip Alieh! Walker On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 3:52 AM Bruno Cadonna wrote: > Thanks for the KIP, Alieh! > > +1 (binding) > > Best, > Bruno > > On 10/10/23 1:14 AM, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > > One more nit: as discussed on the related KIP-698 thread, we should not > > use `get` as prefix for the getters. > > > > So it should be `K key()` and `Optional asOfTimestamp()`. > > > > > > Otherwise the KIP LGTM. > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > On 10/6/23 2:50 AM, Alieh Saeedi wrote: > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> Since KIP-960 is reduced to the simplest IQ type and all further > comments > >> are related to the following-up KIPs, I decided to finalize it at this > >> point. > >> > >> > >> A huge thank you to everyone who has reviewed this KIP (and also the > >> following-up ones), and > >> participated in the discussion thread! > >> > >> I'd also like to thank you in advance for taking the time to vote. > >> > >> Best, > >> Alieh > >> >
Re: [VOTE] KIP-960: Support single-key_single-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores
Thanks for the KIP, Alieh! +1 (binding) Best, Bruno On 10/10/23 1:14 AM, Matthias J. Sax wrote: One more nit: as discussed on the related KIP-698 thread, we should not use `get` as prefix for the getters. So it should be `K key()` and `Optional asOfTimestamp()`. Otherwise the KIP LGTM. +1 (binding) -Matthias On 10/6/23 2:50 AM, Alieh Saeedi wrote: Hi everyone, Since KIP-960 is reduced to the simplest IQ type and all further comments are related to the following-up KIPs, I decided to finalize it at this point. A huge thank you to everyone who has reviewed this KIP (and also the following-up ones), and participated in the discussion thread! I'd also like to thank you in advance for taking the time to vote. Best, Alieh
Re: [VOTE] KIP-960: Support single-key_single-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores
One more nit: as discussed on the related KIP-698 thread, we should not use `get` as prefix for the getters. So it should be `K key()` and `Optional asOfTimestamp()`. Otherwise the KIP LGTM. +1 (binding) -Matthias On 10/6/23 2:50 AM, Alieh Saeedi wrote: Hi everyone, Since KIP-960 is reduced to the simplest IQ type and all further comments are related to the following-up KIPs, I decided to finalize it at this point. A huge thank you to everyone who has reviewed this KIP (and also the following-up ones), and participated in the discussion thread! I'd also like to thank you in advance for taking the time to vote. Best, Alieh
[VOTE] KIP-960: Support single-key_single-timestamp interactive queries (IQv2) for versioned state stores
Hi everyone, Since KIP-960 is reduced to the simplest IQ type and all further comments are related to the following-up KIPs, I decided to finalize it at this point. A huge thank you to everyone who has reviewed this KIP (and also the following-up ones), and participated in the discussion thread! I'd also like to thank you in advance for taking the time to vote. Best, Alieh
