Re: Kafka official docker image

FYI https://docs.confluent.io/current/installation/docker/docs/image-reference.html On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 12:06 AM Олег Иванов wrote: > Hi, > > Could you please create an official docker image of kafka? There are a lot > custom images in the dockerhub, but company's security policy allows

Re: [VOTE] Kafka 2.0.0 in June 2018

+1 (non-binding) On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > +1 > > On 4/24/18 4:21 PM, Jason Gustafson wrote: > > +1 Thanks Ismael. > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 5:01 AM, Thomas Crayford < > tcrayf...@salesforce.com> > > wrote: > > > >> +1 (non-binding).

Re: [VOTE] KIP-187 - Add cumulative count metric for all Kafka rate metrics

+1 (non-binding) On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Ismael Juma wrote: > Thanks for the KIP, +1 (binding) from me. > > Ismael > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Rajini Sivaram > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to start the vote on KIP-187

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-186: Increase offsets retention default to 7 days

+1 for making consistent default log and offsets retention time. I like Stephane's suggestion too, log retention override should override offset retention too if not explicitly configured. Please consider additionally: - introducing offsets.retention.hours config property - syncing log and

Re: [DISCUSS] 2017 October release planning and release version

With 0.x version of project at least I found lots of unexpected painful things acceptable. Graduating from 0.*, with x.y.z semantic versioning IMO it should be clearly communicated to community is there change in meaning, what's the "SLO", what are the commitments, what change in every segment

Re: [VOTE] 0.10.2.1 RC2

Please consider including https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-4814 in the new RC. Kind regards, Stevo Slavic. On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > This is what happens when you do a last-minute merge :( > > Will roll a new RC tomorrow morning.

Re: Apache Kafka Docker official image

For official Apache Kafka Docker image I'd expect that it's published by Apache Kafka project from Dockerfile and related resources all living in Kafka's sources, and as any official Kafka source/resource those would be subject to Apache Kafka project community processes and practices. On Thu,

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

pic.replication. > factor" > > > > d. partition reassignments that expand the RF > > > > > > > > For all of these scenarios, I believe it all boils down to the intent > > of > > > > the imperfectly named "offsets.topic.repl

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-115: Enforce offsets.topic.replication.factor

If I understood well, this KIP is trying to solve for the problem of offsets.topic.replication.factor not being enforced, particularly in context of "when you have clients or tooling running as the cluster is getting setup". Assuming that this problem was observed in production, so in non-testing

Re: [VOTE] KIP-109: Old Consumer Deprecation

+1 (non-binding) and for deprecating it ASAP. It's already actually deprecated, not supported, new features and bug fixes end up only in new clients API, so would be fair to communicate clearly to users in old consumer API that it's deprecated, it's further or new use is discouraged and if one

Re: [VOTE] KIP-106 - Default unclean.leader.election.enabled True => False

+1 (non-binding) On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:11 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Jeff Widman wrote: > > > +1 nonbinding. We were bit by this in a production environment. > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Ian

Re: [RELEASE UPDATE] Postponing the next release candidates and canceling current vote

Sad to see release got postponed. I was looking forward to rack aware replica assignment, to have HA support out of the box. It is hard to follow all the different discussions and what actually caused release to be postponed. Was rack aware feature one of the controversial features? If not would

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-30 Allow for brokers to have plug-able consensus and meta data storage sub systems

Imagine a small team with very limited budget and operational capacity that wants to use Kafka, and needs coordination service for other things too (e.g. service discovery). It's limiting choices too hard to just ZooKeeper if Kafka supports ZooKeeper only. It would be better if Kafka's preferred

Re: [POLL] Make next Kafka Release 0.10.0.0 instead of 0.9.1.0

+1 0.10.0.0 On Tue, Feb 9, 2016, 19:08 Becket Qin wrote: > Hi All, > > Next Kafka release will have several significant important new > feature/changes such as Kafka Stream, Message Format Change, Client > Interceptors and several new consumer API changes, etc. We feel it

Re: Replication Broken between Kafka 0.8.2.1 and 0.9 (trunk)

Those docs at https://kafka.apache.org/090/documentation.html#upgrade ate still mentioning 0.8.3 instead of 0.9.0. Is there JIRA already to fix this? On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Grant Henke wrote: > Hi Matthew, > > I have not read into the details of your issues but

Re: 0.9.0.0 remaining jiras

has "Affects Version/s" set to 0.9, maybe "Fix Version/s" should be set to that value instead. Kind regards, Stevo Slavic. On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Stevo Slavić <ssla...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Jason, > > Maybe this answers your question: > http://m

Re: 0.9.0.0 remaining jiras

Hello Jason, Maybe this answers your question: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/kafka-dev/201509.mbox/%3CCAFc58G-UScVKrSF1kdsowQ8Y96OAaZEdiZsk40G8fwf7iToFaw%40mail.gmail.com%3E Kind regards, Stevo Slavic. On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Jason Rosenberg wrote: > Hi

Re: Maybe 0.8.3 should really be 0.9.0?

+1 (non-binding) for 0.9 On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Jun Rao wrote: > +1 for 0.9. > > Thanks, > > Jun > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Ismael Juma wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) for 0.9. > > > > Ismael > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Gwen

Re: estimation of Kafka 0.8.3 release

Response I got recently http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/kafka-users/201508.mbox/%3cCAFc58G8pvjH_8A0=41dzj5xpe80j+m_skpzadxnog9qxzf1...@mail.gmail.com%3e On Fri, Aug 28, 2015, 16:46 Stefan Miklosovic mikloso...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I am working on some project which is using Kafka

Re: [DISCUSSION] Kafka 0.8.2.2 release?

and also including https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2114 Thanks Jeff On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Stevo Slavić ssla...@gmail.com wrote: +1 (non-binding) for 0.8.2.2 release Would be nice to include in that release new producer resiliency bug

Re: [DISCUSSION] Kafka 0.8.2.2 release?

+1 (non-binding) for 0.8.2.2 release Would be nice to include in that release new producer resiliency bug fixes https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1788 and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2120 On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Gwen Shapira g...@confluent.io wrote: Will be

Re: Official Kafka Gitter Room?

On Apache Mahout project we're using Slack as well - for release coordination. It was found that extra Slack channel does not really fit into Apache way - it was overused, there were too many design discussions going on there, to which community at large has no access to, was not and could not be

Re: Should 0.8.3 consumers correctly function with 0.8.2 brokers?

I'm getting Unknown api code 11 even when both client and server are 0.8.3/trunk, when KafkaConsumer.subscribe(String... topics) is used. Bug? Kind regards, Stevo Slavic. On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Neha Narkhede n...@confluent.io wrote: Yes, I was clearly confused :-) On Fri, Apr 24,

Re: Should 0.8.3 consumers correctly function with 0.8.2 brokers?

. Jiangjie (Becket) Qin On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Stevo Slavić ssla...@gmail.com wrote: I'm getting Unknown api code 11 even when both client and server are 0.8.3/trunk, when KafkaConsumer.subscribe(String... topics) is used. Bug? Kind regards, Stevo Slavic. On Fri, Apr 24

Re: Failing kafka-trunk-git-pr builds now fixed

Hello Ismael, Can you please trigger the build for all of the currently opened pull requests? E.g. my PR https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/85 last automatically added comment is that the build has failed while it should have been success - only javadocs changes are included in PR. Kind

Re: [VOTE] Drop support for Scala 2.9 for the next release

+1 (non-binding) On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Ismael Juma ism...@juma.me.uk wrote: Hi all, I would like to start a vote on dropping support for Scala 2.9 for the next release. People seemed to be in favour of the idea in previous discussions: *

Please publish Kafka snapshots regularly to Apache snapshots repo

Hello Apache Kafka comitters, Can you please have CI or some other regular (e.g. nightly) Kafka build job running on Kafka trunk code configured to also publish Kafka Maven artifacts to Apache snapshots repository? E.g. latest kafka-clients snapshot on

Re: [jira] [Commented] (KAFKA-2132) Move Log4J appender to a separate module

. If this is still an issue, could you file a jira and describe how to reproduce this? Thanks, Jun On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Stevo Slavić ssla...@gmail.com wrote: Are changes for KAFKA-2132 ticket supposed also to fix bug that core dependent libraries (core/build/dependant-libs) for all

Re: [jira] [Commented] (KAFKA-2132) Move Log4J appender to a separate module

Correction to my previous email — it's slf4j-log4j12-1.7.6.jar and slf4j-log4j12-1.6.1.jar that were being copied into dependant-libs, not slf4j-api variants. On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Stevo Slavić ssla...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Jun, I can easily reproduce the issue with previous commit

Re: [jira] [Commented] (KAFKA-2132) Move Log4J appender to a separate module

Are changes for KAFKA-2132 ticket supposed also to fix bug that core dependent libraries (core/build/dependant-libs) for all different supported Scala version, contain two versions of slf4j-log4j12 (slf4j-log4j12-1.6.1.jar leaking from zookeeper 3.4.6 dependency, and test scoped

Re: Dropping support for Scala 2.9.x

+1 for dropping 2.9.x support Kind regards, Stevo Slavic. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Ismael Juma mli...@juma.me.uk wrote: Hi all, The Kafka build currently includes support for Scala 2.9, which means that it cannot take advantage of features introduced in Scala 2.10 or depend on