Re: [DISCUSS]: KIP-230: Name Windowing Joins

Hi Matthias, I've also made a pass over the KIP, aside from the-other-Matthias's comment, I'm wondering if you have scenarios that want to distinguish the two internal topics of the join? Currently we use "-this" and "-other" suffix for the topics. So for example: stream1.join(stream2, ...) //

Build failed in Jenkins: kafka-trunk-jdk8 #2444

See Changes: [me] MINOR: Extend release.py with a subcommand for staging docs into the -- [...truncated 415.50 KB...] kafka.message.ByteBufferMessageSetTest >

Build failed in Jenkins: kafka-trunk-jdk7 #3219

See Changes: [me] MINOR: Extend release.py with a subcommand for staging docs into the -- [...truncated 412.53 KB...] kafka.server.epoch.LeaderEpochFileCacheTest >

Re: [VOTE] 1.1.0 RC0

Hi Jason, Ok - thanks. Let me know how you get on. Cheers, Damian On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 at 19:23 Jason Gustafson wrote: > Hey Damian, > > I think we should consider > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6593 > for the release. I have a patch available, but still

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-211: Revise Expiration Semantics of Consumer Group Offsets

Hey Vahid, Thanks for the response. Replies below: > 1. I think my suggestion in the KIP was more towards ignoring the client > provided values and use a large enough broker config value instead. It > seems the question comes down to whether we still want to honor the > `retention_time` field

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-253: Support in-order message delivery with partition expansion

Hi Dong, Great work on this proposal! Just a couple initial comments: My understanding is that the consumer will block on a topic until the all partitions have reached a certain partition epoch. What are the implications if a partition is offline? If we observe an epoch change while a partition

Re: [VOTE] 1.1.0 RC0

Hey Damian, I think we should consider https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6593 for the release. I have a patch available, but still working on validating both the bug and the fix. -Jason On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Matthias J. Sax wrote: > No. Both will be

Re: Hello

Thanks for sharing this Wei ! Just to let you know that there is a major web docs revamping discussion coming along which aims to re-write the docs in non-html scripting: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2967 https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4536#discussion_r171336905 Guozhang

Re: Are there plans to migrate some/all of the command line tools to use the new AdminClient?

Hi Sönke, There are a couple. The umbrella jira for these tasks is KAFKA-3268 . I personally raised KIP-248 to refactor the

Re: Hello

Impressive work. Under 3.4.1, New Consumer Configs, there are several entries which are not translated. Is there plan to translate them ? Cheers On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 1:48 AM, 程威 wrote: > Hello,we are a Open source Chinese document organization ,now we are > spending time

Re: [DISCUSS] KIP-253: Support in-order message delivery with partition expansion

Hi Dong, I tried to focus on what the steps are one can currently perform to expand or shrink a keyed topic while maintaining a top notch semantics. I can understand that there might be confusion about "stopping the consumer". It is exactly the same as proposed in the KIP. there needs to be a

[jira] [Resolved] (KAFKA-6601) Kafka manager does not provide consumer offset producer rate with kafka v2.10-0.10.2.0

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6601?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sönke Liebau resolved KAFKA-6601. - Resolution: Cannot Reproduce Hi [~raj6329], I've just tested this with kafka_2.10_0.10.2.0 and