Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-914 Join Processor Semantics for Versioned Stores

Thanks for the KIP! Great to see a first step towards using the new versioned stores! I think the described tradeoffs make sense and I like make a pragmatic step into the right direction, and avoid boiling the ocean. Thus, I agree to the proposed solution. One minor thing, that I believe

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-912: Support decreasing send's block time without worrying about metadata's fetch

anyone give some comments?  thanks jian fu 于2023年3月9日周四 10:12写道： > Hi All: > > If anyone can help to give some comments or suggestions for the proposal. > Thanks in advance! > > Regards > Jian > > jian fu 于2023年3月6日周一 15:55写道： > >> Hi Everyone: >> Nice to meet you. >> >> I created one KIP to

Jenkins build is still unstable: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #1682

See

[jira] [Resolved] (KAFKA-13884) KRaft Obsever are not required to flush on every append

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13884?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] José Armando García Sancio resolved KAFKA-13884. Fix Version/s: 3.5.0 Resolution: Fixed > KRaft Obsever are

[DISCUSS] KIP-915: Next Gen Group Coordinator Downgrade Path

Hi folks, I would like to start a discussion thread for KIP-915: Next Gen Group Coordinator Downgrade Path which proposes the downgrade design for the new group coordinator introduced in KIP-848

Jenkins build is still unstable: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #1681

See

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-914 Join Processor Semantics for Versioned Stores

Sounds good to me. Thanks! On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 12:07 PM Victoria Xia wrote: > > Thanks for kicking off the discussion, John and Guozhang! > > > Just one thing that might be out of scope: if users want to enable the > versioned table feature across the topology, should we allow them to do it

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-914 Join Processor Semantics for Versioned Stores

Thanks for kicking off the discussion, John and Guozhang! > Just one thing that might be out of scope: if users want to enable the versioned table feature across the topology, should we allow them to do it via a single config rather than changing the materialized object at each place? Yes, I

Re: [DISCUSSION] MirrorMaker2 offset translation for compacted, filtered, and transactional source topics

Luke, Thanks for leaving your thoughts. I agree that this does not directly change an API, and doesn't fall within the typical KIP guidelines. These proposals would change the behavior of translation within the bounds of the current API, and I wasn't sure whether this fell under the KIP process.

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-914 Join Processor Semantics for Versioned Stores

Thanks Victoria for the great writeup, with a thorough analysis and trade-offs. I do not have any major questions about the proposal. Just one thing that might be out of scope: if users want to enable the versioned table feature across the topology, should we allow them to do it via a single

[jira] [Created] (KAFKA-14811) The forwarding requests are discarded when network client is changed to/from zk/Kraft

Chia-Ping Tsai created KAFKA-14811: -- Summary: The forwarding requests are discarded when network client is changed to/from zk/Kraft Key: KAFKA-14811 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14811

Jenkins build is still unstable: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #1680

See

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-866 ZooKeeper to KRaft Migration

Hey folks, I just wanted to update this thread with some minor changes I've made to the KIP based on the implementation in 3.4. * No new ApiVersionsResponse, we use the "metadata.version" feature flag instead * Pre-Migration instead of "Soft Start" for the phase of the controller before it can

Jenkins build is unstable: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #1679

See

Re: [VOTE] KIP-902: Upgrade Zookeeper to 3.8.1

Hello Colin, Thank you for taking the time to review the proposal! I have attached a compatibility matrix to aid the explanation below - if the mailing system rejects it I will find another way to share it. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not proposing to drop support for rolling upgrade from

[VOTE] KIP-911: Add source tag to MirrorSourceConnector metrics

Hi, I'd like to start the vote on KIP-911 to add the source cluster alias as a tag on the MirrorSourceConnector metrics: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-911%3A+Add+source+tag+to+MirrorSourceConnector+metrics Thanks, Mickael

Re: [DISCUSSION] MirrorMaker2 offset translation for compacted, filtered, and transactional source topics

Hi Greg, Thanks for your summary. I'm not very familiar with MM2, actually, but I'd like to give my answer to some of the questions below: Q1. Would an improvement to allow translation from earlier in the topic be reasonable to propose in a KIP? --> I checked the proposed 5 solutions in

Re: [VOTE] KIP-906 Tools migration guidelines

Hi, Frederico, Thanks for the KIP. Non-binding +1. Thanks, Alexandre Le mer. 15 mars 2023 à 08:28, Luke Chen a écrit : > > +1 from me. > > Luke > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 4:11 PM Federico Valeri > wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I'd like to start the vote on KIP-906 Tools migration

Re: [VOTE] KIP-906 Tools migration guidelines

+1 from me. Luke On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 4:11 PM Federico Valeri wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'd like to start the vote on KIP-906 Tools migration guidelines. > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-906%3A+Tools+migration+guidelines > > Discussion thread: >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-641 An new java interface to replace 'kafka.common.MessageReader'

Hi lsmael I will update the KIP to replace “ org.apache.kafka.clients.tool” by “ org.apache.kafka.tools” due to following reasons. 1) it is more consistent with existent server/clients pluggable interface package 2) kafka tool jar is not expected to be imported to write code for pluggable

[VOTE] KIP-906 Tools migration guidelines

Hi everyone, I'd like to start the vote on KIP-906 Tools migration guidelines. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-906%3A+Tools+migration+guidelines Discussion thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/o2ytmjj2tyc2xcy6xh5tco31yyjzvz8p Thanks Fede

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-906 Tools migration guidelines

Bumping this thread as KIP-641 is now adopted. Thanks Fede On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 11:13 AM Federico Valeri wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:26 AM Luke Chen wrote: > > > > Hi Federico, > > > > 1. Sounds good. > > I think you should make it clear in the KIP. > > > > We only have one tool