Re: [VOTE] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

Thanks everyone for the votes! The KIP has been accepted, with 3 binding votes from Matthias, Bill and Guozhang. Walker On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 9:41 AM Guozhang Wang wrote: > +1 (binding), > > Thanks Walker! > > Guozhang > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 8:41 AM Bill Bejeck wrote: > > > Thanks for

Re: [VOTE] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

+1 (binding), Thanks Walker! Guozhang On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 8:41 AM Bill Bejeck wrote: > Thanks for the KIP. > +1 (binding) > > -Bill > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 1:22 AM Matthias J. Sax > wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > On 10/31/19 10:52 AM, Walker Carlson wrote: > > > Hello all, > >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

Thanks for the KIP. +1 (binding) -Bill On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 1:22 AM Matthias J. Sax wrote: > +1 (binding) > > > On 10/31/19 10:52 AM, Walker Carlson wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I'd like to call a vote on the updated KIP-150: Kafka-Streams Cogroup > > found here > > < >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

+1 (binding) On 10/31/19 10:52 AM, Walker Carlson wrote: > Hello all, > > I'd like to call a vote on the updated KIP-150: Kafka-Streams Cogroup > found here > > > Thanks, > Walker > signature.asc

[VOTE] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

Hello all, I'd like to call a vote on the updated KIP-150: Kafka-Streams Cogroup found here Thanks, Walker

Re: [Vote] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

Kyle, It seems you already have enough committer votes (me, Jay, Sriram, Damian). Guozhang On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Kyle Winkelman wrote: > Bumping this so it is easy to find now that the discussions have died down. > > Thanks, > Kyle > > On Jun 9, 2017

Re: [Vote] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

Bumping this so it is easy to find now that the discussions have died down. Thanks, Kyle On Jun 9, 2017 6:32 PM, "Sriram Subramanian" wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Jay Kreps wrote: > > > +1 > > > > -Jay > > > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at

Re: [Vote] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

+1 On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Jay Kreps wrote: > +1 > > -Jay > > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > > I think we can continue on this voting thread. > > > > Currently we have one binding vote and 2 non-binging votes. I would

Re: [Vote] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

+1 -Jay On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > I think we can continue on this voting thread. > > Currently we have one binding vote and 2 non-binging votes. I would like to > call out for other people especially committers to also take a look at this >

Re: [Vote] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

I think we can continue on this voting thread. Currently we have one binding vote and 2 non-binging votes. I would like to call out for other people especially committers to also take a look at this proposal and vote. Guozhang On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Kyle Winkelman

Re: [Vote] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

Just bringing people's attention to the vote thread for my KIP. I started it before another round of discussion happened. Not sure the protocol so someone let me know if I am supposed to restart the vote. Thanks, Kyle On May 24, 2017 8:49 AM, "Bill Bejeck" wrote: > +1 for

Re: [Vote] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

+1 for the KIP and +1 what Xavier said as well. On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 3:57 AM, Damian Guy wrote: > Also, +1 for the KIP > > On Wed, 24 May 2017 at 08:57 Damian Guy wrote: > > > +1 to what Xavier said > > > > On Wed, 24 May 2017 at 06:45 Xavier

Re: [Vote] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

Also, +1 for the KIP On Wed, 24 May 2017 at 08:57 Damian Guy wrote: > +1 to what Xavier said > > On Wed, 24 May 2017 at 06:45 Xavier Léauté wrote: > >> I don't think we should wait for entries from each stream, since that >> might >> limit the

Re: [Vote] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

+1 to what Xavier said On Wed, 24 May 2017 at 06:45 Xavier Léauté wrote: > I don't think we should wait for entries from each stream, since that might > limit the usefulness of the cogroup operator. There are instances where it > can be useful to compute something based on

Re: [Vote] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

I don't think we should wait for entries from each stream, since that might limit the usefulness of the cogroup operator. There are instances where it can be useful to compute something based on data from one or more stream, without having to wait for all the streams to produce something for the

Re: [Vote] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

The proposal LGTM, +1 One question I have is about when to send the record to the resulted KTable changelog. For example in your code snippet in the wiki page, before you see the end result of 1L, Customer[ cart:{Item[no:01], Item[no:03], Item[no:04]},

Re: [Vote] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

Hi Kyle, I left a few more comments in the discussion thread, if you wouldn't mind taking a look On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 5:31 AM Kyle Winkelman wrote: > Hello all, > > I would like to start the vote on KIP-150. > >

[Vote] KIP-150 - Kafka-Streams Cogroup

Hello all, I would like to start the vote on KIP-150. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-150+-+Kafka-Streams+Cogroup Thanks, Kyle