Re: [DISCUSS] 2017 October release planning and release version

+1 on 1.0. It's about time :) On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:11 PM Ewen Cheslack-Postava wrote: > Ack on the deprecation, as long as we actually give people the window. I > guess we're not doing a good job of communicating what that period is > anyway, so we can play a bit fast and

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Kafka PMC member Jason Gustafson

Congratulations Jason! Very well deserved. On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:48 PM Vahid S Hashemian < vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Great news. Congratulations Jason! > > --Vahid > > > > From: Guozhang Wang > To: "dev@kafka.apache.org" > Date:

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Kafka PMC member Ismael Juma

Very well deserved. Congratulations Ismael! On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:33 AM Viktor Somogyi wrote: > Congrats Ismael :) > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Konstantine Karantasis < > konstant...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Congratulations Ismael! > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 7,

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Damian Guy

Well deserved. Congratulations Damian! On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 1:34 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: > Hello all, > > > The PMC of Apache Kafka is pleased to announce that we have invited Damian > Guy as a committer to the project. > > Damian has made tremendous contributions to

Re: [VOTE] KIP-156 Add option "dry run" to Streams application reset tool

+1 On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 12:32 PM Gwen Shapira wrote: > +1. Also not sure that adding a parameter to a CLI requires a KIP. It seems > excessive. > > > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:57 PM Jay Kreps wrote: > > > +1 > > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:41 PM BigData dev

Re: [VOTE] KIP-143: Controller Health Metrics

+1 On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 9:23 AM Sriram Subramanian wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Tom Crayford wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Fri, 5 May 2017 at 00:28, Michael André Pearce < > > michael.andre.pea...@me.com> wrote: > > > > >

Re: [VOTE] 0.10.2.1 RC1

+1 (binding). Verified signatures, ran quickstart and tests. On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:45 PM Gwen Shapira wrote: > Verified my own signatures, ran quickstart and created few Connectors. > > +1 (binding) > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:25 PM, Gwen Shapira

Re: [VOTE] 0.10.2.0 RC2

+1 (binding) Verified signatures, quickstart, docs. Thanks for running the release, Ewen! On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:42 AM Gwen Shapira wrote: > +1 (binding). > > Verified signatures, ran unit tests, ran quickstart. > > Nice release :) > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:39 AM,

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Grant Henke

Congratulations, Grant. Well deserved! On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 7:51 AM Grant Henke wrote: > Thanks everyone! > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:58 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > > > Congratulations! > > > > On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 at 03:35 Jun Rao

Re: [VOTE] KIP-104: Granular Sensors for Streams

+1. Thanks Eno! On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:05 PM Guozhang Wang wrote: > +1, thanks. > > On Jan 9, 2017 12:27 PM, "Ismael Juma" wrote: > > Thanks for the KIP, +1 on the latest update. > > Ismael > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Eno Thereska

Re: [VOTE] KIP-108: Create Topic Policy

+1 - thanks Ismael! On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:30 PM Gwen Shapira wrote: > +1 - thanks for the proposal, I think it will be super useful for admins. > > On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > As the discussion seems to have

Re: [VOTE] KIP-103: Separation of Internal and External traffic

+1 On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:21 AM Jun Rao wrote: > Hi, Ismael, > > Thanks for the KIP. +1 > > Jun > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > As the discussion seems to have settled down, I would like to initiate > the > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-105: Addition of Record Level for Sensors

+1 On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:04 AM Sriram Subramanian wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Bill Bejeck wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Guozhang Wang > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 6,

Re: [VOTE] KIP-102 - Add close with timeout for consumers

+1 (binding) On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 2:07 PM Rajini Sivaram wrote: > Hi all, > > > I would like to start the voting process for *KIP-102 - Add close with > timeout for consumers*: > > > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-66: Single Message Transforms for Kafka Connect

+1 (binding) On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 2:36 PM Shikhar Bhushan wrote: > I do plan on introducing a new `connect:transforms` module (which > `connect:runtime` will depend on), so they will live in a separate module > in the source tree and output. > > (

Re: [VOTE] KIP-99: Add Global Tables to Kafka Streams

+1 (binding) On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:40 AM Ewen Cheslack-Postava wrote: > +1 > > -Ewen > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > +1 > > > > I'm glad this super-common use-case will become more performant now. > > > > On Mon, Dec 12,

Re: [DISCUSS] Dormant/Inactive KIPs

+1. This is a good idea as we have a lot of KIPs in flight. On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 3:53 AM Ismael Juma wrote: > Hi all, > > A while back Grant proposed moving inactive/dormant KIPs to a separate > table in the wiki. I think this is a good idea as it will make it easier > for

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-106 - Change Default unclean.leader.election.enabled from True to False

Big +1. On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:22 AM Tom Crayford wrote: > +1. We've been running it in production for a long time and it's the right > default. > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > Thanks for the KIP, +1 from me. > > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-90 Remove zkClient dependency from Streams

Makes sense :) On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 5:50 PM Jay Kreps wrote: > Ha, least controversial KIP ever. :-) > > -Jay > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Hojjat Jafarpour > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > The following is a KIP for removing zkClient dependency

Re: [VOTE] KIP-100 - Relax Type constraints in Kafka Streams API

+1 (binding) On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:41 AM Guozhang Wang wrote: > +1 (binding) Thanks Xavier for the proposal ! > > I think the source compatibility should be very rare as of now. > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Eno Thereska > wrote: > > > +1

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-98: Exactly Once Delivery and Transactional Messaging

Apurva and Jason -- appreciate the detailed explanation, thank you! Jason - > In many applications, there is already a natural identifier which is already used to divide the workload. For example, in Kafka Streams and Kafka Connect, we have a taskId. For applications where there is no natural

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-101: Alter Replication Protocol to use Leader Generation rather than High Watermark for Truncation

Good to see this KIP being proposed. Back when I added the epoch to the replication protocol, we discussed adding it to the log due to the failure scenarios listed in the KIP but I failed to convince people that it was worth the effort needed to upgrade the cluster (especially after we asked

Re: [VOTE]: KIP-97: The client compatibility KIP

+1 (binding) On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:00 AM Guozhang Wang wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Sriram Subramanian > wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > > >

Re: Improvements to Jenkins pull request builder

Nice! Thanks Ismael. On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:47 AM Damian Guy wrote: > Cool - thanks Ismael! > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 at 18:22 Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > Thanks Ismael, this is sper helpful! > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-98: Exactly Once Delivery and Transactional Messaging

Thanks for initiating this KIP! I think it is well written and I'm excited to see the first step towards adding an important feature in Kafka. I had a few initial thoughts on the KIP, mostly not as deeply thought through than what you've done - 1. Perhaps you’ve thought about how this would work

Re: [VOTE] KIP-96 - Add per partition metrics for in-sync and replica count

+1 (binding) On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:43 PM Eno Thereska wrote: > +1 (non binding) > > > On 30 Nov 2016, at 21:34, Xavier Léauté wrote: > > > > Based on the feedback KIP-96 seems pretty uncontroversial, so I'd like to > > initiate a vote on it. > >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-96 - Add per partition metrics for in-sync and assigned replica count

This seems useful, +1 On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:39 AM Ismael Juma wrote: > Hi Xavier, > > Thanks for the KIP. Sounds good to me. > > Ismael > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Xavier Léauté > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I created KIP-96 to propose per

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-95: Incremental Batch Processing for Kafka Streams

Thanks for initiating this. I think this is a good first step towards unifying batch and stream processing in Kafka. I understood this capability to be simple yet very useful; it allows a Streams program to process a log, in batch, in arbitrary windows defined by the difference between the HW and

Re: [VOTE] KIP-85: Dynamic JAAS configuration for Kafka clients

Super useful, thanks Rajini. +1 On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 8:11 AM Rajini Sivaram wrote: > I have added this to the KIP. > > Thanks, > > Rajini > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > One more thing: we are using the PASSWORD

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer: Jiangjie (Becket) Qin

Congratulations, Becket! Well done. On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:34 PM Eno Thereska wrote: > Congrats! > Eno > > > On 1 Nov 2016, at 05:57, Harsha Chintalapani wrote: > > > > Congrats Becket! > > -Harsha > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 2:13 PM Rajini

Re: [VOTE] Add REST Server to Apache Kafka

ver to be part of Kafka. Also, > > this has been noted in the discuss thread that we should make an interest > > vote thread to include users list. > > > > Thanks, > > Harsha > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 6:51 PM Neha Narkhede <n...@confluent.io> w

Re: [VOTE] Add REST Server to Apache Kafka

-1 Let me make an observation and then state my reasons. First, I am a little surprised to see this vote thread as I think it is a bit premature. As a community, we've consistently invested in good communication. If there are differing opinions on a DISCUSS thread, we generally gather the

Re: [kafka-clients] [VOTE] 0.10.1.0 RC3

+1 (binding) Verified quick start and artifacts. On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:39 PM Dana Powers wrote: > +1 -- passes kafka-python integration tests > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Jun Rao wrote: > > Thanks for preparing the release. Verified quick

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-80: Kafka REST Server

Harsha/Mani, I completely agree that adding admin API support and security are important features for the Kafka REST proxy. Luckily the roadmap items that you mentioned as being important for a Kafka REST proxy server are exactly the ones the community working on this REST proxy want to add to it

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-73: Replication Quotas

Makes sense to me. Thanks Ben! On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:39 AM Jun Rao wrote: > Yes, this change makes sense to me since it gives the admin better control. > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Ben Stopford wrote: > > > Hi All > > > >

Re: [UPDATE] 0.10.1 Release Progress

Nice! On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:33 PM Ismael Juma wrote: > Well done everyone. :) > > On 20 Sep 2016 5:23 am, "Jason Gustafson" wrote: > > > Thanks everyone for the hard work! The 0.10.1 release branch has been > > created. We're now entering the

Re: [VOTE] KIP-79 - ListOffsetRequest v1 and search by timestamp methods in new consumer.

+1 (binding) On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:57 AM Bill Bejeck wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Jason Gustafson > wrote: > > > +1 and thanks for the great proposal! > > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Becket Qin wrote:

Re: [VOTE] 0.10.1 Release Plan

+1 (binding) On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 6:58 PM Becket Qin wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Dana Powers > wrote: > > > +1 > > > -- Thanks, Neha

Re: [VOTE] KIP-63: Unify store and downstream caching in streams

+1 (binding) On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:34 PM Gwen Shapira wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Looks great and very detailed. Nice job, Eno :) > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Eno Thereska > wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > We'd like to start the vote for

Re: [DISCUSS] Time-based releases for Apache Kafka

Thanks for volunteering, Jason! On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:59 AM Ismael Juma wrote: > Thanks for volunteering Jason. Sounds good to me, > > Ismael > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Jason Gustafson > wrote: > > > Hey All, > > > > It sounds like the general

Re: [VOTE] KIP-78 Cluster Id (second attempt)

+1 (binding) On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:49 AM Grant Henke wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com > > wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:09 AM, Sriram Subramanian

[ANNOUNCE] New committer: Jason Gustafson

The PMC for Apache Kafka has invited Jason Gustafson to join as a committer and we are pleased to announce that he has accepted! Jason has contributed numerous patches to a wide range of areas, notably within the new consumer and the Kafka Connect layers. He has displayed great taste and

Re: [VOTE] KIP-77: Improve Kafka Streams Join Semantics

+1 (binding) On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 5:33 PM Ewen Cheslack-Postava wrote: > +1 (binding) > > I think the major gap I notice in the PR is a lack of docs updates to > notify people of the change. Given these are improvements and streams is > still new, I wouldn't necessarily

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove beta label from the new Java consumer

Yeah, I'm supportive of this. On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:26 AM Ismael Juma wrote: > Hi Gwen, > > We have a few recent stories of people using Connect and Streams in > production. That means the new Java Consumer too. :) > > Ismael > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Gwen

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Kafka PMC member Gwen Shapira

Congratulations and welcome, Gwen! On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 6:44 PM Jun Rao wrote: > Hi, Everyone, > > Gwen Shapira has been active in the Kafka community since she became a > Kafka committer > about a year ago. I am glad to announce that Gwen is now a member of Kafka > PMC. >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-75 - Add per-connector Converters

+1 (binding) On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 2:10 PM Shikhar Bhushan wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 1:20 PM Ismael Juma wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > On 15 Aug 2016 7:21 pm, "Ewen Cheslack-Postava" > wrote: > > > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP:71 Enable log compaction and deletion to co-exist

+1 (binding) On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:26 AM Matthias J. Sax wrote: > +1 > > On 08/15/2016 06:00 PM, Eno Thereska wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > > >> On 15 Aug 2016, at 14:20, Damian Guy wrote: > >> > >> I would like to initiate the voting process

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-75 - Add per-connector Converters

Makes sense to me. +1 On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:43 PM Sriram Subramanian wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > Looks good to me too - simple, usable and the use-case is clear. > > > > Gwen > > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-71 Enable log compaction and deletion to co-exist

Jun, The motivation for this KIP is to handle joins and windows in Kafka streams better and since Streams supports time-based windows, the KIP suggests combining time-based deletion and compaction. It might make sense to do the same for size-based windows, but can you think of a concrete use

Re: [VOTE] 0.10.0.1 RC2

+1 (binding) On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Grant Henke wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Dana Powers wrote: > > > passed kafka-python integration tests, +1 > > > > -Dana > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Tom

Re: [VOTE] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams

lt;wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> 1. Re StreamsConfig.USER_ENDPOINT_CONFIG: > >>> > >>> I agree with Neha that Kafka Streams can provide the bare minimum APIs > >> just > >>> for host/port, and user's implement

Re: [VOTE] KIP-67: Queryable state for Kafka Streams

Few thoughts that became apparent after observing example code of what an application architecture and code might look like with these changes. Apologize for the late realization hence. 1. "user.endpoint" will be very differently defined for respective applications. I don't think Kafka Streams

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-63: Unify store and downstream caching in streams

I'm in favor of a global config that is then evenly divided amongst the threads of a Kafka Streams instance. On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > Although this KIP is not mainly for memory management of Kafka Streams, > since it touches on quite some part

Re: [VOTE] 0.10.0.0 RC6

+1 (binding). Verified the quickstart. On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > +1 (non-binding). > > Verified source and binary artifacts, ran ./gradlew testAll with JDK 7u80, > quick start on source artifact and Scala 2.11 binary artifact. And the > system

[ANNOUNCE] New committer: Ismael Juma

The PMC for Apache Kafka has invited Ismael Juma to join as a committer and we are pleased to announce that he has accepted! Ismael has contributed 121 commits to a wide range of areas, notably within the security and the network layer. His

Re: Kafka Mailing List Filters

This is super helpful. Thanks Grant! On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:47 PM, James Cheng wrote: > Thanks Grant! These are awesome! I can actually see stuff now! :) > > -James > > > On Apr 3, 2016, at 9:41 PM, Grant Henke wrote: > > > > The Kafka development

[jira] [Updated] (KAFKA-3185) Allow users to cleanup internal data

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3185?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Neha Narkhede updated KAFKA-3185: - Labels: developer-experience (was: ) > Allow users to cleanup internal d

[jira] [Updated] (KAFKA-3262) Make KafkaStreams debugging friendly

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3262?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Neha Narkhede updated KAFKA-3262: - Labels: developer-experience (was: ) > Make KafkaStreams debugging frien

[jira] [Updated] (KAFKA-3337) Extract selector as a separate groupBy operator for KTable aggregations

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3337?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Neha Narkhede updated KAFKA-3337: - Labels: api-change newbie++ (was: newbie++) > Extract selector as a separate groupBy opera

Re: [VOTE] KIP-52: Kafka Connect Control APIs

+1 On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Jay Kreps wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Jason Gustafson > wrote: > > > I'd like to open the vote on KIP-52, which adds several control APIs to > > Kafka Connect: > > > > >

Re: Kafka Connect ++ Kafka Streams

Michal -- This is really cool. Mind submitting a pull request? Also, would you like your IRC connector to be featured on the Kafka Connector Hub ? On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Michal Hariš wrote: > So I had a go and hacked it up

Re: [VOTE] KIP-51 - List Connectors REST API

+1 (binding) On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Liquan Pei wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Straight forward enough and can't possibly break anything. > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Ewen

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-49: Fair Partition Assignment Strategy

+1 On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > Hi Team, > > Since there is a fairly busy release coming up in 2 weeks, and since > partition-assignors are pluggable and don't need to be part of an > Apache Kafka release in order to be useful, can we delay this KIP

Re: [VOTE] Release plan - Kafka 0.10.0

+1 (binding) On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > Hi Joe, > > The branch cutting means that new features will go into trunk, bug > fixes will go into either trunk and branch or just trunk - depending > on committer decision. Committers should take into

Re: kafka streams

Great. Mind sharing the draft or linking to the post if already published? Happy to review if that is useful. On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Bill Bejeck wrote: > All, > > I'm pretty excited about kafka-streams and I've written a blog (first of > 2-3) on the subject, and I'd

Re: [VOTE] Deprecating the old Scala producers for 0.10.0.0

+1 On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Ismael Juma wrote: > Hi all, > > The new Java producer was introduced in 0.8.2.0 (released in February > 2015). It has become the default implementation for various tools since > 0.9.0.0 (released in October 2015) and it is the only

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecating the old Scala producers for the next release

+1 On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > +1. I feel it is the right time to do so in 0.10.0.0. > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:58 AM, Becket Qin wrote: > > > +1 on deprecating old producer. > > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:36 AM,

Re: [VOTE] Make next Kafka release 0.10.0.0 instead of 0.9.1.0

+1 (binding) On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Becket Qin wrote: > Hi All, > > We would like to start this voting thread on making next Kafka release > 0.10.0.0 instead of 0.9.1.0. > > The next Kafka release will have several significant important new > features/changes

Re: 0.9.0.1 RC1

+1 (binding). Verified source and binary artifacts, ran ./gradlew testAll, quick start on source artifact and Scala 2.11 binary artifact. On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava wrote: > Yeah, I saw > > kafka.network.SocketServerTest > tooBigRequestIsRejected

[jira] [Commented] (KAFKA-1464) Add a throttling option to the Kafka replication tool

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1464?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15146250#comment-15146250 ] Neha Narkhede commented on KAFKA-1464: -- The most useful resource to throttle for is network bandwidth

[jira] [Comment Edited] (KAFKA-1464) Add a throttling option to the Kafka replication tool

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1464?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15146250#comment-15146250 ] Neha Narkhede edited comment on KAFKA-1464 at 2/13/16 11:36 PM: The most

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-47 - Add timestamp-based log deletion policy

Adding a timestamp based auto-expiration is useful and this proposal makes sense. Thx! On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Jay Kreps wrote: > I think this makes a lot of sense and won't be hard to implement and > doesn't create too much in the way of new interfaces. > > -Jay > >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-46: Self Healing

uilt into Kafka itself. Following this approach to > begin with makes it easier to fully automate in the future since we will > only need to automate the trigger later. > > Aditya > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Neha Narkhede <n...@confluent.io> wrote: > >

Re: [POLL] Make next Kafka Release 0.10.0.0 instead of 0.9.1.0

+1 on 0.10.0.0 On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Stevo Slavić wrote: > +1 0.10.0.0 > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016, 19:08 Becket Qin wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > Next Kafka release will have several significant important new > > feature/changes such as Kafka

[jira] [Created] (KAFKA-3209) Support single message transforms in Kafka Connect

Neha Narkhede created KAFKA-3209: Summary: Support single message transforms in Kafka Connect Key: KAFKA-3209 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3209 Project: Kafka Issue Type

Re: [VOTE] KIP-42 -- Add Producer and Consumer Interceptors.

+1 On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Ismael Juma wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Ismael > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Jay Kreps wrote: > > > +1 > > > > -Jay > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Anna Povzner wrote: > > > > > Hi

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-42: Add Producer and Consumer Interceptors

t; > similar in this regard although those are less risky. Even so, I > > think > > > >> > there are clear use-cases for broker interceptors so I feel the > risk > > > >> part > > > >> > is something that just needs to be doc

Re: Does kstreams have a key-value store that is backed by Kafka?

James, That's correct. You can find the current Kafka Streams code under the streams package in Kafka trunk. The state store API is at org.apache.kafka.streams.state. There are examples of using the low-level processor API as well as the DSL under org.apache.kafka.streams.examples and more are

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-42: Add Producer and Consumer Interceptors

0:55 AM, Anna Povzner <a...@confluent.io > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi Becket, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > The use-case for CRC is end-to-end audit, rather than checking > > >&

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-42: Add Producer and Consumer Interceptors

gain > >> > > > > > > impact partition assignment (we will likely do that after > >> > partition > >> > > > > > > assignment), which may impact log compaction and mirror > maker > >> > > > > > partitioning. > >&

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-42: Add Producer and Consumer Interceptors

usage without changing app code. Whereas the callback is > added > > by > > > > the > > > > > app. The idea is to kind of obviate the need for the wrapper code > > that > > > > e.g. > > > > > LinkedIn maintains to hold th

Re: [VOTE] KIP-36 - Rack aware replica assignment

Yes. Thanks for driving this. On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Allen Wang wrote: > There are 4 binding +1 and 4 non-binding +1. Shall we consider the proposal > accepted? > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Joel Koshy wrote: > > > +1

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-42: Add Producer and Consumer Interceptors

James, That is one of the many monitoring use cases for the interceptor interface. Thanks, Neha On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:18 PM, James Cheng wrote: > Anna, > > I'm trying to understand a concrete use case. It sounds like producer > interceptors could be used to implement part

Re: [VOTE] KIP-41: Consumer Max Records

+1 (binding) On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 9:10 PM -0800, "Joel Koshy" wrote: +1 On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > Hi All, > > I'd like to open up the vote on KIP-41. This KIP adds a new consumer > configuration option "max.poll.records"

Re: [VOTE] KIP-32 Add CreateTime and LogAppendTime to Kafka message.

ad as it looks in the > KIP > > :) > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>> If I understand it correctly, the process (for users) > will > > > be: > > > > > > > >>>>&g

Re: [VOTE] KIP-32 Add CreateTime and LogAppendTime to Kafka message.

Hey Anna, Thanks for initiating the vote and helping Becket while he is out! Hey Dong, My understanding from observing all the email threads is that there is a general agreement on the approach and the wiki is reasonably up-to-date with all the decisions. Is there a particular reason why the

Re: [VOTE] KIP-32 Add CreateTime and LogAppendTime to Kafka message.

Hey Gwen, Migration plan wasn't really discussed a ton in the previous threads. So it will be great to dive deep and see if there are gaps there. I had some questions, but the details listed on the KIP are great. It is complex, though the plan outlined in the wiki assumes a zero downtime upgrade

[ANNOUNCE] New Kafka Committer Ewen Cheslack-Postava

I am pleased to announce that the Apache Kafka PMC has voted to invite Ewen Cheslack-Postava as a committer and Ewen has accepted. Ewen is an active member of the community and has contributed and reviewed numerous patches to Kafka. His most significant contribution is Kafka Connect which was

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-30 Allow for brokers to have plug-able consensus and meta data storage sub systems

I share Jay's concerns around plugins and he explained that very well, so I will avoid repeating those. Agree that there is some feedback about getting rid of ZooKeeper altogether and I'm on board with building a native version whenever we are ready to take this on. But I don't think the pain is

Re: 0.9.0.0 RC4

+1 (binding). Verified source and binary artifacts, ran unit tests. On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Jun Rao wrote: > I updated the release notes. Since this doesn't affect the release > artifacts to be voted upon, we don't have to do another RC. > > Please vote by 6pm PT

[jira] [Commented] (KAFKA-2807) Movement of throughput throttler to common broke upgrade tests

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2807?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15000969#comment-15000969 ] Neha Narkhede commented on KAFKA-2807: -- We don't want our tests to fail, so marking this as a blocker

[jira] [Updated] (KAFKA-2807) Movement of throughput throttler to common broke upgrade tests

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2807?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Neha Narkhede updated KAFKA-2807: - Priority: Blocker (was: Major) > Movement of throughput throttler to common broke upgrade te

Re: Hadoop Contrib Modules

They aren't relevant and are also not functional. I'd recommend removing those and agree that we can do that as part of 0.9. On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Grant Henke wrote: > Are the hadoop contrib ("hadoop-consumer", "hadoop-producer") modules still > relevant going

Re: Pointer to stream data from Kafka to HDFS

Kevin, In the forthcoming 0.9 release, the community is adding a new ingest/export feature to help with importing and exporting data to and from Kafka.

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-36 - Rack aware replica assignment

Few suggestions on improving the KIP *If some brokers have rack, and some do not, the algorithm will thrown an > exception. This is to prevent incorrect assignment caused by user error.* In the KIP, can you clearly state the user-facing behavior when some brokers have rack information and some

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-40 - Extend GroupMetadata request to return group and member status

I like Jun's suggestion of adding ListGroups and DescribeGroup. It keeps the abstractions simple and avoids overloading existing requests. On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > Hey Jun, > > Thanks for taking a look at this. Initially the thought was to

Re: [VOTE] KIP-40 ListGroups and DescribeGroup

+1 (binding) On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Onur Karaman wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Jiangjie Qin wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Guozhang Wang > wrote: >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-40 - Extend GroupMetadata request to return group and member status

I slightly prefer one of the rejected alternatives over the currently suggested one - which is to add a separate DescribeGroupRequest that always returns the member metadata for the group and any other information useful for monitoring and tooling. It helps keep the abstractions clean and also

Re: [VOTE] KIP-38: ZooKeeper authentication

+1 (binding) On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Todd Palino wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Jiangjie Qin > wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Joel Koshy wrote: >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-39 Pinning controller to a broker

Agree with Jay on staying away from pinning roles to brokers. This is actually harder to operate and monitor. Regarding the problems you mentioned- 1. Reducing the controller moves during rolling bounce is useful but really something that should be handled by the tooling. The root cause is that

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >