Jenkins build is unstable: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #1778

See

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-872: Add Serializer#serializeToByteBuffer() to reduce memory copying

Thank you for your comment, Divij. 4. Do you still have any questions about #4? 5. I add test case for ByteBufferSerializer backward compatibility: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/12685/commits/393af38c27ec8d810a2326ac4b89a53b177e3ee1 Best, ShunKang Divij Vaidya 于2023年4月19日周三 00:45写道： >

[jira] [Resolved] (KAFKA-14908) Sporadic "Address already in use" when starting kafka cluster embedded within tests

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14908?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Luke Chen resolved KAFKA-14908. --- Fix Version/s: 3.6.0 Resolution: Fixed > Sporadic "Address already in use" when starting

Re: Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-918: MM2 Topic And Group Listener

Hi, I have some questions about motivation. The problem to be solved by this kip is that it cannot accurately monitor the topic and group currently being replicated? From my point of view, using MirrorSourceMetrics.recordRate can monitor the configured topic list that is currently being

Build failed in Jenkins: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #1777

See Changes: -- [...truncated 191239 lines...] [2023-04-19T00:59:10.431Z] [INFO] --- maven-install-plugin:2.5.2:install (default-install) @ streams-quickstart-java ---

Build failed in Jenkins: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » 3.4 #111

See Changes: -- [...truncated 525285 lines...] [2023-04-18T23:26:55.837Z] [2023-04-18T23:26:55.837Z] > Task :streams:javadoc [2023-04-18T23:26:55.837Z]

[jira] [Created] (KAFKA-14920) Address timeouts and out of order sequences

Justine Olshan created KAFKA-14920: -- Summary: Address timeouts and out of order sequences Key: KAFKA-14920 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14920 Project: Kafka Issue Type:

[jira] [Resolved] (KAFKA-14917) Producer write while transaction is pending.

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14917?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Justine Olshan resolved KAFKA-14917. Resolution: Won't Fix > Producer write while transaction is pending. >

[jira] [Resolved] (KAFKA-14881) Update UserScramCredentialRecord for SCRAM ZK to KRaft migration

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14881?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Proven Provenzano resolved KAFKA-14881. --- Resolution: Fixed Merged to Trunk and 3.5. > Update UserScramCredentialRecord for

[jira] [Created] (KAFKA-14919) MM2 ForwardingAdmin tests should not conflate admin operations

Greg Harris created KAFKA-14919: --- Summary: MM2 ForwardingAdmin tests should not conflate admin operations Key: KAFKA-14919 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14919 Project: Kafka

Build failed in Jenkins: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #1776

See Changes: -- [...truncated 469370 lines...] [2023-04-18T21:47:12.142Z] > Task :raft:compileTestJava UP-TO-DATE [2023-04-18T21:47:12.142Z] > Task :raft:testClasses

[jira] [Created] (KAFKA-14918) KRaft controller sending ZK controller RPCs to KRaft brokers

David Arthur created KAFKA-14918: Summary: KRaft controller sending ZK controller RPCs to KRaft brokers Key: KAFKA-14918 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14918 Project: Kafka

Jenkins build is unstable: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #1775

See

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-872: Add Serializer#serializeToByteBuffer() to reduce memory copying

3. Ok. Seems like there is no way around to enforce better semantics and maintain backward compatibility as well! Let's go ahead with what you proposed and create a JIRA to fix the semantics in version 4.x. My comment is resolved here. -- Divij Vaidya On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 6:47 AM ShunKang

Re: Adding reviewers with Github actions

Do we even need a manual attribution for a reviewer in the commit message? GitHub automatically marks the folks as "reviewers" who have used the "review-changes" button on the top left corner and left feedback. GitHub also has searchability for such reviews done by a particular person using the

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-895: Dynamically refresh partition count of __consumer_offsets

Hello all and thank you for the insightful comments! As pointed out in the third rejected alternative I think the ideal solution is what a few of you have also mentioned - if partitions need to be expanded consumer groups should not lose their offsets and be able to find them. I was aware that

Jenkins build is still unstable: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » 3.4 #110

See

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

Thank you all for the suggestions for improvements on the KIP and the resulting discussions! Since the voting has been opened for ~2 months and I have received 3 binding +1 (Colin, Ismael, Mickael) and 1 non-binding +1 (Divij) I will move the KIP to accepted and update the associated pull request

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-892: Transactional Semantics for StateStores

Nick, Thank you for continuing this work. I have a few minor clarifying questions. A) "Records written to any transaction are visible to all other transactions immediately." I am confused here—I thought there could only be one transaction going on at a time for a given state store given the

Re: [DISCUSS] Re-visit end of life policy

Regarding#2 - About the support of minor versions: Fair enough. We can keep the current policy for latest minor versions until we can reduce the effort it requires to release a version. Regarding#1 - About the last major version release: About backporting security patches to the latest minor

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-918: MM2 Topic And Group Listener

Hello everyone, I would like to bump this KIP. Please consider reviewing it, as it would improve the monitoring capabilities around MM2. I also submitted a PR (https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/13595) to demonstrate the current state of the KIP. Thanks in advance, Daniel Dániel Urbán ezt

Re: Adding reviewers with Github actions

I'm not that familiar with Actions either, it just seemed like a tool for this purpose. :) I Did some digging and what I have in mind is that on pull request review it can trigger a workflow: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/events-that-trigger-workflows#pull_request_review We

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Kafka 3.5.0 release

Hi David, Thanks for the update. I've marked KAFKA-14869 as fixed in 3.5.0, I guess you'll only resolve this ticket once you merge the backports to earlier branches. The ticket will have to be resolved to run the release but that should leave you enough time. Thanks, Mickael On Tue, Apr 18,

Build failed in Jenkins: Kafka » Kafka Branch Builder » trunk #1774

See Changes: -- [...truncated 561471 lines...] [2023-04-18T12:24:36.224Z] > Task :group-coordinator:compileTestJava UP-TO-DATE [2023-04-18T12:24:36.224Z] > Task

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Kafka 3.5.0 release

Hi Mickael, FYI - I just merged the two PRs for KIP-915 to trunk/3.5. We are all good. Cheers, David On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 5:10 PM Mickael Maison wrote: > Hi Chris, > > I was looking at that just now! As you said, the PRs merged provide > some functionality so I think it's fine to deliver

[jira] [Resolved] (KAFKA-14735) Improve KRaft metadata image change performance at high topic counts

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-14735?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Ron Dagostino resolved KAFKA-14735. --- Resolution: Fixed > Improve KRaft metadata image change performance at high topic counts >

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-892: Transactional Semantics for StateStores

Hi everyone, I've updated the KIP to reflect the latest version of the design: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-892%3A+Transactional+Semantics+for+StateStores There are several changes in there that reflect feedback from this thread, and there's a new section and a bunch of

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-917: Additional custom metadata for remote log segment

Hi Ivan, Thanks for the follow-up. Yes, you are right that the suggested alternative is to let the plugin store its own metadata separately with a solution chosen by the admin or plugin provider. For instance, it could be using a dedicated topic if chosen to, or relying on an external key-value

Re: Adding reviewers with Github actions

Hi all, Unless I miss something, wouldn't this GitHub action either amend the commit (breaking signature if any) or directly do the commit itself (meaning the action would be the one squashing and merging and not the maintainer anymore)? Let me know if I'm missing something or if there are some

Adding reviewers with Github actions

Hi all, Unfortunately I forgot to add myself as a reviewer *again *on a PR when merging. Shame on me. However I was thinking about looking into Github actions whether we can automate this process or at least prevent PRs from merging that don't have "reviewers" in the description. Has anyone ever