I have now submitted the PR for review. Thanks Matthias for pointing out
that KAFKA- was raised to address the same.
https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/6771
if someone reviews after Jenkins build is complete, I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 22:18, M. Manna wrote:
Apologies for the delay. As per the original thread, there have been 3
binding votes.
I will be closing this and update the confluence page with the results.
Also, I will be submitting the PR soon.
Regards,
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 at 00:18, M. Manna wrote:
> Thanks Harsha.
>
> As per your
Thanks Harsha.
As per your comments, I have counted 3 binding votes so far.
Thanks everyone for your comments and support. I’ll update the kip next
morning and do the needful.
Regards,
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 22:10, Harsha wrote:
> Looks like the KIP is passed with 3 binding votes. From
Looks like the KIP is passed with 3 binding votes. From Matthias, Bill Bejeck
and myself you got 3 binding votes.
You can do the full tally of the votes and send out a close of vote thread.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019, at 12:24 PM, M. Manna wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Trying to revive this
Hello,
Trying to revive this thread again. Would anyone be interested in having
this KiP through
Thanks,
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 at 16:44, M. Manna wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to revive this thread. I only got 1 binding vote so far.
>
> Please feel free to revisit and comment here.
>
>
Hello,
I am trying to revive this thread. I only got 1 binding vote so far.
Please feel free to revisit and comment here.
Thanks,
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 00:15, M. Manna wrote:
> Hey IJ,
>
> Thanks for your interest in the KIP.
>
> My point was simply that the round-robin should happen even
Hey IJ,
Thanks for your interest in the KIP.
My point was simply that the round-robin should happen even if the key is
not null. As for the importance of key in our case, we treat the key as
metadata. Each key is composed of certain info which are parsed by our
consumer thread. We will then
Thanks for the KIP. Can you please elaborate on the need for the key in
this case? The KIP simply states that the key is needed for metadata, but
doesn't give any more details.
Ismael
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 3:39 AM M. Manna wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have made necessary changes as per the original
Having Round-robin partitioner as default makes sense.
+1 (binding).
Thanks,
Harsha
On Oct 19, 2018, 9:54 AM -0700, Matthias J. Sax , wrote:
> People a currently quite busy with 2.1.0 and 2.0.1 releases. That's why
> the vote might go slow.
>
> Just keep bumping the vote thread on a weekly
People a currently quite busy with 2.1.0 and 2.0.1 releases. That's why
the vote might go slow.
Just keep bumping the vote thread on a weekly bases... Thanks for your
patients.
-Matthias
On 10/19/18 1:08 AM, M. Manna wrote:
> Since this has gone quiet, could I prequest 1 more vote here - if
Since this has gone quiet, could I prequest 1 more vote here - if anyone
thinks it's worth doing?
Thanks,
On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 at 16:14, M. Manna wrote:
> Thanks for reminding me about the "Binding" vote Bill. I remember some
> people with non-binding vote, so jumped the gun a bit too early.
>
Thanks for reminding me about the "Binding" vote Bill. I remember some
people with non-binding vote, so jumped the gun a bit too early.
We will wait for 2 more as you stated.
Regards,
On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 at 16:07, Bill Bejeck wrote:
> +1 from me.
>
> As for closing the vote, it needs to be open
+1 from me.
As for closing the vote, it needs to be open for a minimum of 72 and
requires three binding +1 votes. Additionally, there needs more +1 binding
votes than -1 votes. The description for the lazy majority vote process is
described here
Since this has been open for a while, I am assuming that it's good to go?
if so, I will update the KIP page - and start coding this. I would prefer
re-using existing tests written for DefaultPartitioner, so that we don't
need to write new tests.
Regards,
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 19:34, Matthias
+1 (binding)
@Abhimanyu: can you please update the table in
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
and add a link to the KIP. Thanks.
-Matthias
On 9/4/18 9:56 PM, Abhimanyu Nagrath wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 2:39 AM Magesh Nandakumar
> wrote:
+1
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 2:39 AM Magesh Nandakumar
wrote:
> +1 ( non-binding)
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 3:39 AM M. Manna wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have made necessary changes as per the original discussion thread, and
> > would like to put it for votes.
> >
> > Thank you very much for
+1 ( non-binding)
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 3:39 AM M. Manna wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have made necessary changes as per the original discussion thread, and
> would like to put it for votes.
>
> Thank you very much for your suggestion and guidance so far.
>
> Regards,
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
