Thanks Matthias. With that, I can close this vote. The total is +4 with 3
binding votes.
-Jason
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 3:52 PM Matthias J. Sax
wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On 4/10/19 12:17 AM, Magnus Edenhill wrote:
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> >
> > Den ons 10 apr. 2019 kl 02:38 skrev Guozhang
+1 (binding)
On 4/10/19 12:17 AM, Magnus Edenhill wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
>
> Den ons 10 apr. 2019 kl 02:38 skrev Guozhang Wang :
>
>> +1 (binding). Thanks for the written KIP! The approach lgtm.
>>
>> One minor thing: the name of "last epoch" maybe a bit misleading (although
>> it is for
+1 (non-binding)
Den ons 10 apr. 2019 kl 02:38 skrev Guozhang Wang :
> +1 (binding). Thanks for the written KIP! The approach lgtm.
>
> One minor thing: the name of "last epoch" maybe a bit misleading (although
> it is for internal usage only and will not be exposed to users) for future
>
+1 (binding). Thanks for the written KIP! The approach lgtm.
One minor thing: the name of "last epoch" maybe a bit misleading (although
it is for internal usage only and will not be exposed to users) for future
developers, how about rename it to "required_epoch" and if it is set to
"-1" it means
Bump (for Guozhang)
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 8:55 AM Jason Gustafson wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to start a vote on KIP-360:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-360%3A+Improve+handling+of+unknown+producer
> .
>
> +1 from me (duh)
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
>
Hi All,
I'd like to start a vote on KIP-360:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-360%3A+Improve+handling+of+unknown+producer
.
+1 from me (duh)
Thanks,
Jason
