Re: [VOTE] KIP-1012: The need for a Kafka 3.8.x release

[Josep Prat]

Hi all,

the vote passes with:

- 4 binding votes: Colin, Chris, Greg and myself
- 1 non-binding vote: Anton

Thanks everyone for the discussion and feedback!

Best,

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 11:08 PM Colin McCabe  wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> Based on some of the offline discussions we had, people generally feel
> that major/minor releases have a large enough overhead that they don't want
> them more frequently than every 4 months. (Obviously dot releases are a
> different story) So Josep and I didn't want to raise the issue here.
>
> I also feel that 4 months should be enough (for anyone? :) ) But I'm
> always an optimist.
>
> best,
> Colin
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024, at 13:03, Chris Egerton wrote:
> > Hi Colin,
> >
> > The idea isn't to hold up 4.0.0 any longer; in fact, it's the opposite.
> If
> > things slip a bit with 3.8.0 and we take, for example, an extra month to
> > deliver it (or even to cut the branch), I don't think this should
> > necessarily translate to an extra month of latency between now and 4.0.0,
> > given exactly what you mention about the major changes we plan to include
> > in 4.0.0 (which consist more of dropping support for existing things than
> > adding support for new things).
> >
> > If we want to avoid confusion, we could say something like "no later
> than 3
> > to 4 months after the 3.8 branch is created". Frankly though, I think
> it's
> > unnecessary to specify an exact timeline for 4.0 in this KIP, since
> nothing
> > in the proposal actually diverges from the usual time-based release plan
> we
> > follow. The only necessary part seems to be to state that 4.0 will
> directly
> > follow 3.8 (as opposed to 3.9, 3.10, etc.). But perhaps I'm missing
> > something?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 2:38 PM Colin McCabe  wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024, at 09:05, Chris Egerton wrote:
> >> > Hi Josep,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for the KIP! +1 (binding).
> >> >
> >> > One small nit: I don't think we necessarily have to hold ourselves to
> >> > releasing 4.0.0 "3 to 4 months after 3.8 branch is created" (quoting
> the
> >> > timeline section of the KIP). IMO it's fine to leave some wiggle room
> for
> >> > the 4.0.0 release without codifying a timeline in this KIP. Maybe
> >> something
> >> > like "some time after 3.8 branch is created" would be sufficient?
> >> Anyways,
> >> > not a huge thing, I'm sure we'll all give 4.0.0 the flexibility it
> needs
> >> > with the understanding that this KIP is more focused on 3.8.0 than
> 4.0.0.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hmm... I don't see any obstacles in the path of releasing 4.0 after the
> >> traditional 4 months of development. Keep in mind, we're removing things
> >> from the code (the ability to support JDK8, ZooKeeper mode, etc.), not
> >> adding things. We already support JDK11 so saying that it's the minimum
> is
> >> a very quick change. Similarly, we already support KRaft so saying that
> >> it's the only mode should be a pretty quick change.
> >>
> >> Also, we added a note that "the timeline is very rough" to KIP-833 and
> it
> >> caued all kinds of confusion. So overall I'd prefer to leave the
> language
> >> about 4.0 unchanged.
> >>
> >> best,
> >> Colin
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> >
> >> > Chris
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 11:41 AM Greg Harris
>  >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Thanks Josep for leading the KIP and building consensus on 3.8!
> >> >>
> >> >> +1 (binding)
> >> >>
> >> >> Greg
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 11:45 PM Josep Prat
>  >> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi all,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for your comments,
> >> >> > I reworded some parts of the KIP to express that:
> >> >> > - The KIP is to agree that we need at least one more minor version
> in
> >> the
> >> >> > 3.x series
> >> >> > - Explicitly saying that the list of KIPs is not exhaustive and
> that
> >> if
> >> >> > some are not done, we would need another minor version
> >> >> > - Which are the KIPs/Features the community identified that should
> be
> >> >> > present in a 3.x version so they can safely migrate to a potential
> 4.0
> >> >> > version
> >> >> > - The timeline of 4.0 (starting after branching, not after release)
> >> >> > - Wording is now focusing more on the need to have at least another
> >> minor
> >> >> > release in 3.x to enable and ease migration to a potential 4.0
> version
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I always mention potential in terms of 4.0 as we don't know what
> will
> >> be
> >> >> in
> >> >> > there yet, and this KIP's scope is not meant to define this.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Best,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 10:46 PM Ismael Juma 
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > I agree with Colin. Also, 4.0 would be started after 3.8 is
> branched
> >> >> (not
> >> >> > > after 3.8.0 is released). The rest looks good.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Thanks!
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Ismael
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 11:27 PM Colin McCabe  >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > 

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1012: The need for a Kafka 3.8.x release

[Colin McCabe]

Hi Chris,

Based on some of the offline discussions we had, people generally feel that 
major/minor releases have a large enough overhead that they don't want them 
more frequently than every 4 months. (Obviously dot releases are a different 
story) So Josep and I didn't want to raise the issue here.

I also feel that 4 months should be enough (for anyone? :) ) But I'm always an 
optimist.

best,
Colin


On Mon, Jan 8, 2024, at 13:03, Chris Egerton wrote:
> Hi Colin,
>
> The idea isn't to hold up 4.0.0 any longer; in fact, it's the opposite. If
> things slip a bit with 3.8.0 and we take, for example, an extra month to
> deliver it (or even to cut the branch), I don't think this should
> necessarily translate to an extra month of latency between now and 4.0.0,
> given exactly what you mention about the major changes we plan to include
> in 4.0.0 (which consist more of dropping support for existing things than
> adding support for new things).
>
> If we want to avoid confusion, we could say something like "no later than 3
> to 4 months after the 3.8 branch is created". Frankly though, I think it's
> unnecessary to specify an exact timeline for 4.0 in this KIP, since nothing
> in the proposal actually diverges from the usual time-based release plan we
> follow. The only necessary part seems to be to state that 4.0 will directly
> follow 3.8 (as opposed to 3.9, 3.10, etc.). But perhaps I'm missing
> something?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 2:38 PM Colin McCabe  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024, at 09:05, Chris Egerton wrote:
>> > Hi Josep,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the KIP! +1 (binding).
>> >
>> > One small nit: I don't think we necessarily have to hold ourselves to
>> > releasing 4.0.0 "3 to 4 months after 3.8 branch is created" (quoting the
>> > timeline section of the KIP). IMO it's fine to leave some wiggle room for
>> > the 4.0.0 release without codifying a timeline in this KIP. Maybe
>> something
>> > like "some time after 3.8 branch is created" would be sufficient?
>> Anyways,
>> > not a huge thing, I'm sure we'll all give 4.0.0 the flexibility it needs
>> > with the understanding that this KIP is more focused on 3.8.0 than 4.0.0.
>> >
>>
>> Hmm... I don't see any obstacles in the path of releasing 4.0 after the
>> traditional 4 months of development. Keep in mind, we're removing things
>> from the code (the ability to support JDK8, ZooKeeper mode, etc.), not
>> adding things. We already support JDK11 so saying that it's the minimum is
>> a very quick change. Similarly, we already support KRaft so saying that
>> it's the only mode should be a pretty quick change.
>>
>> Also, we added a note that "the timeline is very rough" to KIP-833 and it
>> caued all kinds of confusion. So overall I'd prefer to leave the language
>> about 4.0 unchanged.
>>
>> best,
>> Colin
>>
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 11:41 AM Greg Harris > >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks Josep for leading the KIP and building consensus on 3.8!
>> >>
>> >> +1 (binding)
>> >>
>> >> Greg
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 11:45 PM Josep Prat > >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for your comments,
>> >> > I reworded some parts of the KIP to express that:
>> >> > - The KIP is to agree that we need at least one more minor version in
>> the
>> >> > 3.x series
>> >> > - Explicitly saying that the list of KIPs is not exhaustive and that
>> if
>> >> > some are not done, we would need another minor version
>> >> > - Which are the KIPs/Features the community identified that should be
>> >> > present in a 3.x version so they can safely migrate to a potential 4.0
>> >> > version
>> >> > - The timeline of 4.0 (starting after branching, not after release)
>> >> > - Wording is now focusing more on the need to have at least another
>> minor
>> >> > release in 3.x to enable and ease migration to a potential 4.0 version
>> >> >
>> >> > I always mention potential in terms of 4.0 as we don't know what will
>> be
>> >> in
>> >> > there yet, and this KIP's scope is not meant to define this.
>> >> >
>> >> > Best,
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 10:46 PM Ismael Juma 
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > I agree with Colin. Also, 4.0 would be started after 3.8 is branched
>> >> (not
>> >> > > after 3.8.0 is released). The rest looks good.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks!
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Ismael
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 11:27 PM Colin McCabe 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Hi,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Thanks for calling the vote, Josep.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I re-checked this, and saw something that we missed updating. One
>> >> thing
>> >> > > we
>> >> > > > talked about earlier is that KIP-966 is actually not required for
>> >> 3.8.
>> >> > > What
>> >> > > > is required is some way of enabling unclean leader election by
>> >> default in
>> >> > > > KRaft. (Which could be KIP-966, or something else). Please revise
>> >> this.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > best,
>> >> > > > Colin

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1012: The need for a Kafka 3.8.x release

[Chris Egerton]

Hi Colin,

The idea isn't to hold up 4.0.0 any longer; in fact, it's the opposite. If
things slip a bit with 3.8.0 and we take, for example, an extra month to
deliver it (or even to cut the branch), I don't think this should
necessarily translate to an extra month of latency between now and 4.0.0,
given exactly what you mention about the major changes we plan to include
in 4.0.0 (which consist more of dropping support for existing things than
adding support for new things).

If we want to avoid confusion, we could say something like "no later than 3
to 4 months after the 3.8 branch is created". Frankly though, I think it's
unnecessary to specify an exact timeline for 4.0 in this KIP, since nothing
in the proposal actually diverges from the usual time-based release plan we
follow. The only necessary part seems to be to state that 4.0 will directly
follow 3.8 (as opposed to 3.9, 3.10, etc.). But perhaps I'm missing
something?

Cheers,

Chris

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 2:38 PM Colin McCabe  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024, at 09:05, Chris Egerton wrote:
> > Hi Josep,
> >
> > Thanks for the KIP! +1 (binding).
> >
> > One small nit: I don't think we necessarily have to hold ourselves to
> > releasing 4.0.0 "3 to 4 months after 3.8 branch is created" (quoting the
> > timeline section of the KIP). IMO it's fine to leave some wiggle room for
> > the 4.0.0 release without codifying a timeline in this KIP. Maybe
> something
> > like "some time after 3.8 branch is created" would be sufficient?
> Anyways,
> > not a huge thing, I'm sure we'll all give 4.0.0 the flexibility it needs
> > with the understanding that this KIP is more focused on 3.8.0 than 4.0.0.
> >
>
> Hmm... I don't see any obstacles in the path of releasing 4.0 after the
> traditional 4 months of development. Keep in mind, we're removing things
> from the code (the ability to support JDK8, ZooKeeper mode, etc.), not
> adding things. We already support JDK11 so saying that it's the minimum is
> a very quick change. Similarly, we already support KRaft so saying that
> it's the only mode should be a pretty quick change.
>
> Also, we added a note that "the timeline is very rough" to KIP-833 and it
> caued all kinds of confusion. So overall I'd prefer to leave the language
> about 4.0 unchanged.
>
> best,
> Colin
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 11:41 AM Greg Harris  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Josep for leading the KIP and building consensus on 3.8!
> >>
> >> +1 (binding)
> >>
> >> Greg
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 11:45 PM Josep Prat  >
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for your comments,
> >> > I reworded some parts of the KIP to express that:
> >> > - The KIP is to agree that we need at least one more minor version in
> the
> >> > 3.x series
> >> > - Explicitly saying that the list of KIPs is not exhaustive and that
> if
> >> > some are not done, we would need another minor version
> >> > - Which are the KIPs/Features the community identified that should be
> >> > present in a 3.x version so they can safely migrate to a potential 4.0
> >> > version
> >> > - The timeline of 4.0 (starting after branching, not after release)
> >> > - Wording is now focusing more on the need to have at least another
> minor
> >> > release in 3.x to enable and ease migration to a potential 4.0 version
> >> >
> >> > I always mention potential in terms of 4.0 as we don't know what will
> be
> >> in
> >> > there yet, and this KIP's scope is not meant to define this.
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 10:46 PM Ismael Juma 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I agree with Colin. Also, 4.0 would be started after 3.8 is branched
> >> (not
> >> > > after 3.8.0 is released). The rest looks good.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks!
> >> > >
> >> > > Ismael
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 11:27 PM Colin McCabe 
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks for calling the vote, Josep.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I re-checked this, and saw something that we missed updating. One
> >> thing
> >> > > we
> >> > > > talked about earlier is that KIP-966 is actually not required for
> >> 3.8.
> >> > > What
> >> > > > is required is some way of enabling unclean leader election by
> >> default in
> >> > > > KRaft. (Which could be KIP-966, or something else). Please revise
> >> this.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > best,
> >> > > > Colin
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024, at 02:50, Anton Agestam wrote:
> >> > > > > +1 from me.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Den fre 5 jan. 2024 kl 10:33 skrev Josep Prat
> >> > > > :
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> Hi all,
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> I'd like to start a vote on KIP-1012:
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1012%3A+The+need+for+a+Kafka+3.8.x+release
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> Discussion thread is here:
> >> > > > >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/kvdp2gmq5gd9txkvxh5vk3z2n55b04s5
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> 

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1012: The need for a Kafka 3.8.x release

[Colin McCabe]

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024, at 09:05, Chris Egerton wrote:
> Hi Josep,
>
> Thanks for the KIP! +1 (binding).
>
> One small nit: I don't think we necessarily have to hold ourselves to
> releasing 4.0.0 "3 to 4 months after 3.8 branch is created" (quoting the
> timeline section of the KIP). IMO it's fine to leave some wiggle room for
> the 4.0.0 release without codifying a timeline in this KIP. Maybe something
> like "some time after 3.8 branch is created" would be sufficient? Anyways,
> not a huge thing, I'm sure we'll all give 4.0.0 the flexibility it needs
> with the understanding that this KIP is more focused on 3.8.0 than 4.0.0.
>

Hmm... I don't see any obstacles in the path of releasing 4.0 after the 
traditional 4 months of development. Keep in mind, we're removing things from 
the code (the ability to support JDK8, ZooKeeper mode, etc.), not adding 
things. We already support JDK11 so saying that it's the minimum is a very 
quick change. Similarly, we already support KRaft so saying that it's the only 
mode should be a pretty quick change.

Also, we added a note that "the timeline is very rough" to KIP-833 and it caued 
all kinds of confusion. So overall I'd prefer to leave the language about 4.0 
unchanged.

best,
Colin

>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 11:41 AM Greg Harris 
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Josep for leading the KIP and building consensus on 3.8!
>>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 11:45 PM Josep Prat 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Thanks for your comments,
>> > I reworded some parts of the KIP to express that:
>> > - The KIP is to agree that we need at least one more minor version in the
>> > 3.x series
>> > - Explicitly saying that the list of KIPs is not exhaustive and that if
>> > some are not done, we would need another minor version
>> > - Which are the KIPs/Features the community identified that should be
>> > present in a 3.x version so they can safely migrate to a potential 4.0
>> > version
>> > - The timeline of 4.0 (starting after branching, not after release)
>> > - Wording is now focusing more on the need to have at least another minor
>> > release in 3.x to enable and ease migration to a potential 4.0 version
>> >
>> > I always mention potential in terms of 4.0 as we don't know what will be
>> in
>> > there yet, and this KIP's scope is not meant to define this.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 10:46 PM Ismael Juma  wrote:
>> >
>> > > I agree with Colin. Also, 4.0 would be started after 3.8 is branched
>> (not
>> > > after 3.8.0 is released). The rest looks good.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks!
>> > >
>> > > Ismael
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 11:27 PM Colin McCabe 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks for calling the vote, Josep.
>> > > >
>> > > > I re-checked this, and saw something that we missed updating. One
>> thing
>> > > we
>> > > > talked about earlier is that KIP-966 is actually not required for
>> 3.8.
>> > > What
>> > > > is required is some way of enabling unclean leader election by
>> default in
>> > > > KRaft. (Which could be KIP-966, or something else). Please revise
>> this.
>> > > >
>> > > > best,
>> > > > Colin
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024, at 02:50, Anton Agestam wrote:
>> > > > > +1 from me.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Den fre 5 jan. 2024 kl 10:33 skrev Josep Prat
>> > > > :
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> Hi all,
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I'd like to start a vote on KIP-1012:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1012%3A+The+need+for+a+Kafka+3.8.x+release
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Discussion thread is here:
>> > > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/kvdp2gmq5gd9txkvxh5vk3z2n55b04s5
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Thanks!
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> ---
>> > > > >> Josep Prat
>> > > > >> Open Source Engineering Director, aivenjosep.p...@aiven.io   |
>> > > > >> +491715557497 | aiven.io
>> > > > >> Aiven Deutschland GmbH
>> > > > >> Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin
>> > > > >> Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen
>> > > > >> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > [image: Aiven] 
>> >
>> > *Josep Prat*
>> > Open Source Engineering Director, *Aiven*
>> > josep.p...@aiven.io   |   +491715557497
>> > aiven.io    |   <
>> https://www.facebook.com/aivencloud>
>> >      <
>> https://twitter.com/aiven_io>
>> > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH*
>> > Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin
>> > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen
>> > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B
>>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1012: The need for a Kafka 3.8.x release

[Colin McCabe]

Thanks for the changes. +1 (binding)

best,
Colin

On Sun, Jan 7, 2024, at 23:43, Josep Prat wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for your comments,
> I reworded some parts of the KIP to express that:
> - The KIP is to agree that we need at least one more minor version in the
> 3.x series
> - Explicitly saying that the list of KIPs is not exhaustive and that if
> some are not done, we would need another minor version
> - Which are the KIPs/Features the community identified that should be
> present in a 3.x version so they can safely migrate to a potential 4.0
> version
> - The timeline of 4.0 (starting after branching, not after release)
> - Wording is now focusing more on the need to have at least another minor
> release in 3.x to enable and ease migration to a potential 4.0 version
>
> I always mention potential in terms of 4.0 as we don't know what will be in
> there yet, and this KIP's scope is not meant to define this.
>
> Best,
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 10:46 PM Ismael Juma  wrote:
>
>> I agree with Colin. Also, 4.0 would be started after 3.8 is branched (not
>> after 3.8.0 is released). The rest looks good.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Ismael
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 11:27 PM Colin McCabe  wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Thanks for calling the vote, Josep.
>> >
>> > I re-checked this, and saw something that we missed updating. One thing
>> we
>> > talked about earlier is that KIP-966 is actually not required for 3.8.
>> What
>> > is required is some way of enabling unclean leader election by default in
>> > KRaft. (Which could be KIP-966, or something else). Please revise this.
>> >
>> > best,
>> > Colin
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024, at 02:50, Anton Agestam wrote:
>> > > +1 from me.
>> > >
>> > > Den fre 5 jan. 2024 kl 10:33 skrev Josep Prat
>> > :
>> > >
>> > >> Hi all,
>> > >>
>> > >> I'd like to start a vote on KIP-1012:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1012%3A+The+need+for+a+Kafka+3.8.x+release
>> > >>
>> > >> Discussion thread is here:
>> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/kvdp2gmq5gd9txkvxh5vk3z2n55b04s5
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks!
>> > >>
>> > >> ---
>> > >> Josep Prat
>> > >> Open Source Engineering Director, aivenjosep.p...@aiven.io   |
>> > >> +491715557497 | aiven.io
>> > >> Aiven Deutschland GmbH
>> > >> Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin
>> > >> Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen
>> > >> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B
>> > >>
>> >
>>
>
>
> -- 
> [image: Aiven] 
>
> *Josep Prat*
> Open Source Engineering Director, *Aiven*
> josep.p...@aiven.io   |   +491715557497
> aiven.io    |   
>      
> *Aiven Deutschland GmbH*
> Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin
> Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen
> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1012: The need for a Kafka 3.8.x release

[Chris Egerton]

Hi Josep,

Thanks for the KIP! +1 (binding).

One small nit: I don't think we necessarily have to hold ourselves to
releasing 4.0.0 "3 to 4 months after 3.8 branch is created" (quoting the
timeline section of the KIP). IMO it's fine to leave some wiggle room for
the 4.0.0 release without codifying a timeline in this KIP. Maybe something
like "some time after 3.8 branch is created" would be sufficient? Anyways,
not a huge thing, I'm sure we'll all give 4.0.0 the flexibility it needs
with the understanding that this KIP is more focused on 3.8.0 than 4.0.0.

Cheers,

Chris

On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 11:41 AM Greg Harris 
wrote:

> Thanks Josep for leading the KIP and building consensus on 3.8!
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Greg
>
> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 11:45 PM Josep Prat 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Thanks for your comments,
> > I reworded some parts of the KIP to express that:
> > - The KIP is to agree that we need at least one more minor version in the
> > 3.x series
> > - Explicitly saying that the list of KIPs is not exhaustive and that if
> > some are not done, we would need another minor version
> > - Which are the KIPs/Features the community identified that should be
> > present in a 3.x version so they can safely migrate to a potential 4.0
> > version
> > - The timeline of 4.0 (starting after branching, not after release)
> > - Wording is now focusing more on the need to have at least another minor
> > release in 3.x to enable and ease migration to a potential 4.0 version
> >
> > I always mention potential in terms of 4.0 as we don't know what will be
> in
> > there yet, and this KIP's scope is not meant to define this.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 10:46 PM Ismael Juma  wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with Colin. Also, 4.0 would be started after 3.8 is branched
> (not
> > > after 3.8.0 is released). The rest looks good.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 11:27 PM Colin McCabe 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for calling the vote, Josep.
> > > >
> > > > I re-checked this, and saw something that we missed updating. One
> thing
> > > we
> > > > talked about earlier is that KIP-966 is actually not required for
> 3.8.
> > > What
> > > > is required is some way of enabling unclean leader election by
> default in
> > > > KRaft. (Which could be KIP-966, or something else). Please revise
> this.
> > > >
> > > > best,
> > > > Colin
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024, at 02:50, Anton Agestam wrote:
> > > > > +1 from me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Den fre 5 jan. 2024 kl 10:33 skrev Josep Prat
> > > > :
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi all,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'd like to start a vote on KIP-1012:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1012%3A+The+need+for+a+Kafka+3.8.x+release
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Discussion thread is here:
> > > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/kvdp2gmq5gd9txkvxh5vk3z2n55b04s5
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ---
> > > > >> Josep Prat
> > > > >> Open Source Engineering Director, aivenjosep.p...@aiven.io   |
> > > > >> +491715557497 | aiven.io
> > > > >> Aiven Deutschland GmbH
> > > > >> Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin
> > > > >> Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen
> > > > >> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > [image: Aiven] 
> >
> > *Josep Prat*
> > Open Source Engineering Director, *Aiven*
> > josep.p...@aiven.io   |   +491715557497
> > aiven.io    |   <
> https://www.facebook.com/aivencloud>
> >      <
> https://twitter.com/aiven_io>
> > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH*
> > Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin
> > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen
> > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1012: The need for a Kafka 3.8.x release

[Greg Harris]

Thanks Josep for leading the KIP and building consensus on 3.8!

+1 (binding)

Greg

On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 11:45 PM Josep Prat  wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for your comments,
> I reworded some parts of the KIP to express that:
> - The KIP is to agree that we need at least one more minor version in the
> 3.x series
> - Explicitly saying that the list of KIPs is not exhaustive and that if
> some are not done, we would need another minor version
> - Which are the KIPs/Features the community identified that should be
> present in a 3.x version so they can safely migrate to a potential 4.0
> version
> - The timeline of 4.0 (starting after branching, not after release)
> - Wording is now focusing more on the need to have at least another minor
> release in 3.x to enable and ease migration to a potential 4.0 version
>
> I always mention potential in terms of 4.0 as we don't know what will be in
> there yet, and this KIP's scope is not meant to define this.
>
> Best,
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 10:46 PM Ismael Juma  wrote:
>
> > I agree with Colin. Also, 4.0 would be started after 3.8 is branched (not
> > after 3.8.0 is released). The rest looks good.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 11:27 PM Colin McCabe  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Thanks for calling the vote, Josep.
> > >
> > > I re-checked this, and saw something that we missed updating. One thing
> > we
> > > talked about earlier is that KIP-966 is actually not required for 3.8.
> > What
> > > is required is some way of enabling unclean leader election by default in
> > > KRaft. (Which could be KIP-966, or something else). Please revise this.
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Colin
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024, at 02:50, Anton Agestam wrote:
> > > > +1 from me.
> > > >
> > > > Den fre 5 jan. 2024 kl 10:33 skrev Josep Prat
> > > :
> > > >
> > > >> Hi all,
> > > >>
> > > >> I'd like to start a vote on KIP-1012:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1012%3A+The+need+for+a+Kafka+3.8.x+release
> > > >>
> > > >> Discussion thread is here:
> > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/kvdp2gmq5gd9txkvxh5vk3z2n55b04s5
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks!
> > > >>
> > > >> ---
> > > >> Josep Prat
> > > >> Open Source Engineering Director, aivenjosep.p...@aiven.io   |
> > > >> +491715557497 | aiven.io
> > > >> Aiven Deutschland GmbH
> > > >> Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin
> > > >> Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen
> > > >> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> [image: Aiven] 
>
> *Josep Prat*
> Open Source Engineering Director, *Aiven*
> josep.p...@aiven.io   |   +491715557497
> aiven.io    |   
>      
> *Aiven Deutschland GmbH*
> Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin
> Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen
> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1012: The need for a Kafka 3.8.x release

[Josep Prat]

Hi all,

Thanks for your comments,
I reworded some parts of the KIP to express that:
- The KIP is to agree that we need at least one more minor version in the
3.x series
- Explicitly saying that the list of KIPs is not exhaustive and that if
some are not done, we would need another minor version
- Which are the KIPs/Features the community identified that should be
present in a 3.x version so they can safely migrate to a potential 4.0
version
- The timeline of 4.0 (starting after branching, not after release)
- Wording is now focusing more on the need to have at least another minor
release in 3.x to enable and ease migration to a potential 4.0 version

I always mention potential in terms of 4.0 as we don't know what will be in
there yet, and this KIP's scope is not meant to define this.

Best,

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 10:46 PM Ismael Juma  wrote:

> I agree with Colin. Also, 4.0 would be started after 3.8 is branched (not
> after 3.8.0 is released). The rest looks good.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ismael
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 11:27 PM Colin McCabe  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for calling the vote, Josep.
> >
> > I re-checked this, and saw something that we missed updating. One thing
> we
> > talked about earlier is that KIP-966 is actually not required for 3.8.
> What
> > is required is some way of enabling unclean leader election by default in
> > KRaft. (Which could be KIP-966, or something else). Please revise this.
> >
> > best,
> > Colin
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 5, 2024, at 02:50, Anton Agestam wrote:
> > > +1 from me.
> > >
> > > Den fre 5 jan. 2024 kl 10:33 skrev Josep Prat
> > :
> > >
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to start a vote on KIP-1012:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1012%3A+The+need+for+a+Kafka+3.8.x+release
> > >>
> > >> Discussion thread is here:
> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/kvdp2gmq5gd9txkvxh5vk3z2n55b04s5
> > >>
> > >> Thanks!
> > >>
> > >> ---
> > >> Josep Prat
> > >> Open Source Engineering Director, aivenjosep.p...@aiven.io   |
> > >> +491715557497 | aiven.io
> > >> Aiven Deutschland GmbH
> > >> Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin
> > >> Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen
> > >> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B
> > >>
> >
>


-- 
[image: Aiven] 

*Josep Prat*
Open Source Engineering Director, *Aiven*
josep.p...@aiven.io   |   +491715557497
aiven.io    |   
     
*Aiven Deutschland GmbH*
Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin
Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen
Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1012: The need for a Kafka 3.8.x release

[Ismael Juma]

I agree with Colin. Also, 4.0 would be started after 3.8 is branched (not
after 3.8.0 is released). The rest looks good.

Thanks!

Ismael

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 11:27 PM Colin McCabe  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for calling the vote, Josep.
>
> I re-checked this, and saw something that we missed updating. One thing we
> talked about earlier is that KIP-966 is actually not required for 3.8. What
> is required is some way of enabling unclean leader election by default in
> KRaft. (Which could be KIP-966, or something else). Please revise this.
>
> best,
> Colin
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024, at 02:50, Anton Agestam wrote:
> > +1 from me.
> >
> > Den fre 5 jan. 2024 kl 10:33 skrev Josep Prat
> :
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I'd like to start a vote on KIP-1012:
> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1012%3A+The+need+for+a+Kafka+3.8.x+release
> >>
> >> Discussion thread is here:
> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/kvdp2gmq5gd9txkvxh5vk3z2n55b04s5
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Josep Prat
> >> Open Source Engineering Director, aivenjosep.p...@aiven.io   |
> >> +491715557497 | aiven.io
> >> Aiven Deutschland GmbH
> >> Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin
> >> Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen
> >> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B
> >>
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1012: The need for a Kafka 3.8.x release

[Colin McCabe]

Gathering up some other feedback from the DISCUSS thread:

- Please explicitly say that if we can't get the required features in in time, 
we'll have another 3.x release, following the usual time-based schedule

- Please explicitly say that there may be other new features in 3.8 besides the 
required ones

best,
Colin

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024, at 13:27, Colin McCabe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for calling the vote, Josep.
>
> I re-checked this, and saw something that we missed updating. One thing 
> we talked about earlier is that KIP-966 is actually not required for 
> 3.8. What is required is some way of enabling unclean leader election 
> by default in KRaft. (Which could be KIP-966, or something else). 
> Please revise this.
>
> best,
> Colin
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2024, at 02:50, Anton Agestam wrote:
>> +1 from me.
>>
>> Den fre 5 jan. 2024 kl 10:33 skrev Josep Prat :
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'd like to start a vote on KIP-1012:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1012%3A+The+need+for+a+Kafka+3.8.x+release
>>>
>>> Discussion thread is here:
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/kvdp2gmq5gd9txkvxh5vk3z2n55b04s5
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Josep Prat
>>> Open Source Engineering Director, aivenjosep.p...@aiven.io   |
>>> +491715557497 | aiven.io
>>> Aiven Deutschland GmbH
>>> Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin
>>> Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen
>>> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B
>>>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1012: The need for a Kafka 3.8.x release

[Colin McCabe]

Hi,

Thanks for calling the vote, Josep.

I re-checked this, and saw something that we missed updating. One thing we 
talked about earlier is that KIP-966 is actually not required for 3.8. What is 
required is some way of enabling unclean leader election by default in KRaft. 
(Which could be KIP-966, or something else). Please revise this.

best,
Colin

On Fri, Jan 5, 2024, at 02:50, Anton Agestam wrote:
> +1 from me.
>
> Den fre 5 jan. 2024 kl 10:33 skrev Josep Prat :
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'd like to start a vote on KIP-1012:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1012%3A+The+need+for+a+Kafka+3.8.x+release
>>
>> Discussion thread is here:
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/kvdp2gmq5gd9txkvxh5vk3z2n55b04s5
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> ---
>> Josep Prat
>> Open Source Engineering Director, aivenjosep.p...@aiven.io   |
>> +491715557497 | aiven.io
>> Aiven Deutschland GmbH
>> Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin
>> Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen
>> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B
>>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-1012: The need for a Kafka 3.8.x release

[Anton Agestam]

+1 from me.

Den fre 5 jan. 2024 kl 10:33 skrev Josep Prat :

> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to start a vote on KIP-1012:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1012%3A+The+need+for+a+Kafka+3.8.x+release
>
> Discussion thread is here:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/kvdp2gmq5gd9txkvxh5vk3z2n55b04s5
>
> Thanks!
>
> ---
> Josep Prat
> Open Source Engineering Director, aivenjosep.p...@aiven.io   |
> +491715557497 | aiven.io
> Aiven Deutschland GmbH
> Alexanderufer 3-7, 10117 Berlin
> Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen
> Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B
>