/clients/producer/SenderTest.java
ef2ca65cabe97b909f17b62027a1bb06827e88fe
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29379/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
://reviews.apache.org/r/29379/diff/
Testing (updated)
---
Unit test added.
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
/producer/MockProducer.java
34624c3b7a1f28735ab6c63cc9e18a410e87e63c
clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/producer/Producer.java
5baa6062bd9ba8a7d38058856ed2d831fae491f0
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29467/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
://reviews.apache.org/r/29467/diff/
Testing (updated)
---
existing unit tests passed.
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
/29468/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
.
Diffs
-
clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/producer/ProducerRecord.java
065d4e6c6a4966ac216e98696782e2714044df29
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29468/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
Handling the case where al the fields in ProducerRecord can be null.
Diffs (updated)
-
clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/producer/ProducerRecord.java
065d4e6c6a4966ac216e98696782e2714044df29
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29468/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
/clients/producer/ProducerRecord.java
https://reviews.apache.org/r/29468/#comment117967
nulls are handled now.
- Parth Brahmbhatt
On Feb. 11, 2015, 10:53 p.m., Parth Brahmbhatt wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail
/kafka/clients/producer/ProducerRecordTest.java
PRE-CREATION
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29468/diff/
Testing (updated)
---
Unit tests added.
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
/test/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/producer/ProducerRecordTest.java
PRE-CREATION
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29468/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
---
On Feb. 11, 2015, 10:49 p.m., Parth Brahmbhatt wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/29468
17fe541588d462c68c33f6209717cc4015e9b62f
clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/producer/internals/Sender.java
ed9c63a6679e3aaf83d19fde19268553a4c107c2
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29467/diff/
Testing
---
existing unit tests passed.
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
/Producer.java
17fe541588d462c68c33f6209717cc4015e9b62f
clients/src/main/java/org/apache/kafka/clients/producer/internals/Sender.java
ed9c63a6679e3aaf83d19fde19268553a4c107c2
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29467/diff/
Testing
---
existing unit tests passed.
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
/clients/producer/SenderTest.java
ef2ca65cabe97b909f17b62027a1bb06827e88fe
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29379/diff/
Testing
---
Unit test added.
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
://reviews.apache.org/r/29379/#comment110570
done.
- Parth Brahmbhatt
On Jan. 6, 2015, 6:42 p.m., Parth Brahmbhatt wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/29379
/apache/kafka/clients/producer/SenderTest.java
ef2ca65cabe97b909f17b62027a1bb06827e88fe
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/29379/diff/
Testing
---
Unit test added.
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
,
Thanks for putting this together. Overall it looks good to
me. Although AdminUtils is a concern KIP-4 can probably fix
that part.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015, at 10:39 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt wrote:
Forgot to add links to wiki and jira.
Link to wiki:
https
/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
42c72198a0325e234cf1d428b687663099de884e
core/src/main/scala/kafka/consumer/ConsumerConfig.scala
9ebbee6c16dc83767297c729d2d74ebbd063a993
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/32251/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
p.m., Parth Brahmbhatt wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/32251/
---
(Updated March 19, 2015, 7:19 p.m.)
Review
42c72198a0325e234cf1d428b687663099de884e
core/src/main/scala/kafka/consumer/ConsumerConfig.scala
9ebbee6c16dc83767297c729d2d74ebbd063a993
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/32251/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
42c72198a0325e234cf1d428b687663099de884e
core/src/main/scala/kafka/consumer/ConsumerConfig.scala
9ebbee6c16dc83767297c729d2d74ebbd063a993
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/32251/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
42c72198a0325e234cf1d428b687663099de884e
core/src/main/scala/kafka/consumer/ConsumerConfig.scala
9ebbee6c16dc83767297c729d2d74ebbd063a993
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/32251/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
I can confirm that KAFKA-1688 will cover this use case. Please go over
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-11+-+Authorization+In
terface and let me know if you think there is a different use case being
covered by KIP-7.
Thanks
Parth
On 3/20/15, 9:26 AM, Jun Rao
I am not entirely sure what you mean by integrating KIP-7 work with
KAFKA-1688. Wouldn¹t the work done as part of KIP-7 become obsolete once
KAFKA-1688 is done? Multiple ways of controlling these authorization just
seems extra configuration that will confuse admins/users.
If timing is the only
just need to wait
until
KIP-7 is done? If we add the small change now, we will have to worry about
migrating existing users and deprecating some configs when KIP-7 is done.
Thanks,
Jun
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
I am not entirely sure
to
me. Although AdminUtils is a concern KIP-4 can probably fix
that part.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015, at 10:39 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt wrote:
Forgot to add links to wiki and jira.
Link to wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-11+-+Authorization
://reviews.apache.org/r/32460/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
, Harsha ka...@harsha.io wrote:
Hi Parth,
Thanks for putting this together. Overall it looks good to
me. Although AdminUtils is a concern KIP-4 can probably fix
that part.
Thanks,
Harsha
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015, at 10:39 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt wrote:
Forgot to add links
used by kafka is already failing for me when I try to parse a
map that has an already json encoded string as value for some key.
Jun
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.commailto:pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Hi Gwen,
Thanks a lot for taking the time
evolve it in the future (e.g., adding group support)?
Jun
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Hi Gwen,
Thanks a lot for taking the time to review this. I have tried to
address
all your questions below.
Thanks
Parth
On 3/28/15, 8:08 PM, Gwen
://reviews.apache.org/r/32460/diff/
Testing (updated)
---
unit tests added.
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Neha Narkhede
n...@confluent.iomailto:n...@confluent.io wrote:
Parth,
We can make some 15 mins or so to discuss this at the next KIP hangout.
Thanks,
Neha
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.commailto:pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com
/KafkaProducer.java
https://reviews.apache.org/r/29467/#comment121525
changed log level to suggested value.
- Parth Brahmbhatt
On March 2, 2015, 6:41 p.m., Parth Brahmbhatt wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail
/r/29467/diff/
Testing
---
existing unit tests passed.
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
,
line 554
https://reviews.apache.org/r/29467/diff/4/?file=882247#file882247line554
It's probably worth adding an
if(timeout 0)
on this.
Added.
On March 3, 2015, 4:10 a.m., Parth Brahmbhatt wrote:
Two minor changes I noted, but otherwise looks good to me. Needs some unit
://reviews.apache.org/r/29467/#review74897
---
On March 2, 2015, 6:41 p.m., Parth Brahmbhatt wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/29467
Hi,
KIP-11 is open for discussion , I have updated the wiki with the design and
open questions.
Thanks
Parth
Forgot to add links to wiki and jira.
Link to wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-11+-+Authorization+Interface
Link to Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1688
Thanks
Parth
From: Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.commailto:pbrahmbh
, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
user3 does not have access and removing the deny rule does not grant him
or user2 access. user2 even without the deny rule will not have access.
Thanks
Parth
On 4/20/15, 12:03 PM, Jun Rao j...@confluent.io wrote:
Just a followup question
The iptables on unix supports the DENY operator, not that it should
matter. The deny operator can also be used to specify ³allow user1 to READ
from topic1 from all hosts but host1,host2². Again we could add a host
group semantic and extra complexity around that, not sure if its worth it.
In
and rule2 denies user2. Does user3 have access? If not, does removing
rule1
enable user3 access?
Thanks,
Jun
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Hi Joel,
Thanks for the review and I plan to update the KIP today with all the
updated info. My comments
is superusers will have full access. I don’t
think making assumptions about ones security requirement should be our
burden.
On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 7:10 PM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
I have added the notes to KIP-11 Open question sections.
Thanks
Parth
On 4
PM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
The iptables on unix supports the DENY operator, not that it should
matter. The deny operator can also be used to specify ³allow user1 to
READ
from topic1 from all hosts but host1,host2². Again we could add a
host
group semantic
to this, it seems that we need to support wildcard in cli/request
protocol for topics?
Jun
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
The iptables on unix supports the DENY operator, not that it should
matter. The deny operator can also be used
/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Hey Jun,
Yes and we support wild cards for all acl entities principal, hosts and
operation.
Thanks
Parth
On 4/21/15, 9:06 AM, Jun Rao j...@confluent.io wrote:
Harsha, Parth,
Thanks for the clarification. This makes sense. Perhaps
tgraves...@yahoo.commailto:tgraves...@yahoo.com
Reply-To: Tom Graves tgraves...@yahoo.commailto:tgraves...@yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 11:02 AM
To: Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.commailto:pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com,
dev@kafka.apache.orgmailto:dev@kafka.apache.org
dev
will just
scan all topic acls and apply filtering logic.
Thanks
Parth
On 4/22/15, 11:08 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com
wrote:
Please see all the available options here
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-11+-+Authorization+I
nterface#KIP-11-AuthorizationInterface
You are right , I forgot to mention the ―operation option in CLI , I just
added it. Sorry for about the confusion.
Thanks
Parth
On 4/22/15, 11:22 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com
wrote:
Sorry I missed your last questions. I am +0 on adding ―host option for
―list, we could add
, but it will be difficult to implement KIP-11
without knowing the answers :)
Gwen
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
You are right, moved it to the default implementation section.
Thanks
Parth
On 4/24/15, 9:52 AM, Gwen Shapira gshap
are DefaultAuthorizer implementation? It
will make reviews and Authorizer implementations a bit easier to know
exactly which is which.
Gwen
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Hi,
I would like to open KIP-11 for voting.
Thanks
Parth
On 4/22/15
? Or is it the KIP?
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Thanks for clarifying Gwen, KIP updated.
I tried to make the distinction by creating a section for all public
APIs
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-11+-+Authorization
Hi,
I would like to open KIP-11 for voting.
Thanks
Parth
On 4/22/15, 1:56 PM, Parth Brahmbhatt pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com
wrote:
Hi Jeff,
Thanks a lot for the review. I think you have a valid point about acls
being duplicated and the simplest solution would be to modify acls class
so
separate which parts are the API (common to every
Authorizer) and which parts are DefaultAuthorizer implementation? It
will make reviews and Authorizer implementations a bit easier to know
exactly which is which.
Gwen
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote
to users? Additionally I worry about the debt of big JSON
configs in the first place, most non-developers find them non-intuitive
already, so anything to ease this I think would be beneficial.
Thanks
Jeff
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Sorry
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:15:37AM +, Parth Brahmbhatt wrote:
Kafka currently stores logConfig overrides specified during topic creation
in zookeeper, its just an instance of java.util.Properties converted to
json. I am proposing in addition to that we store acls and owner as well
as part of same
are not talking about same Groups :)
I meant, Groups of consumers (which KIP-11 lists as a separate
resource in the Privilege table)
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
I see Groups as something we can add incrementally in the current model.
The acls take
, what would the admin do to replicate the acls
from one cluster to another? Will she just list all acls from cli and
reissue them to another cluster periodically?
Thanks,
Jun
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Thanks for your comments Jun
, perhaps it's useful to allow only user X to
create topic X.
Thanks,
Jun
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:36 AM, Gwen Shapira gshap...@cloudera.com
wrote:
Thanks for clarifying, Parth. I think you are taking the right approach
here.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh
the right
approach here.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
Sorry Gwen, completely misunderstood the question :-).
* Does everyone have the privilege to create a new Group and use it
to consume from Topics he's already privileged
+1.
Thanks
Parth
On 5/1/15, 12:38 AM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava e...@confluent.io wrote:
Also +1. There are some drawbacks to using Github for reviews, e.g. lots
of
emails for each review because they don't let you publish your entire
review in one go like RB does, but it drastically lowers the
GitHub user Parth-Brahmbhatt opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/61
KAFKA-2169: Moving to zkClient 0.5 release.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/Parth-Brahmbhatt/kafka KAFKA-2169
would we want to do this? If the listeners are invoked twice as long as
both of them exit whichever one gets invoked first will just kill the process
and the other one will not be invoked. Why would we care which System.exit
kills the process?
- Parth Brahmbhatt
On May 11, 2015, 8:53 p.m
/KafkaController.scala
a6351163f5b6f080d6fa50bcc3533d445fcbc067
core/src/main/scala/kafka/server/KafkaHealthcheck.scala
861b7f644941f88ce04a4e95f6b28d18bf1db16d
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34050/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
861b7f644941f88ce04a4e95f6b28d18bf1db16d
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34047/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
/KafkaHealthcheck.scala
861b7f644941f88ce04a4e95f6b28d18bf1db16d
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34050/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
://reviews.apache.org/r/34050/#comment134408
I don't understand why this needs to be done which is why I haven't
addressed it. Can you elloborate why would it matter which one of the 2 calls
exits the process?
- Parth Brahmbhatt
On May 11, 2015, 8:53 p.m., Parth Brahmbhatt wrote
Hi,
Opening the voting thread for KIP-11.
Link to the KIP:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-11+-+Authorization+Interface
Link to Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1688
Thanks
Parth
38f4ec0bd1b388cc8fc04b38bbb2e7aaa1c3f43b
core/src/main/scala/kafka/controller/KafkaController.scala
a6351163f5b6f080d6fa50bcc3533d445fcbc067
core/src/main/scala/kafka/server/KafkaHealthcheck.scala
861b7f644941f88ce04a4e95f6b28d18bf1db16d
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34050/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth
).
On 3/25/15, 1:07 PM, Parth Brahmbhatt pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com
wrote:
Hi all,
I have modified the KIP to reflect the recent change request from the
reviewers. I have been working on the code and I have the server side
code
for authorization ready. I am now modifying the command line
that to a hostname without a round trip to a DNS server, which is
insecure
anyway).
On 3/25/15, 1:07 PM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.commailto:pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com
wrote:
Hi all,
I have modified the KIP to reflect the recent change request from the
reviewers. I have been working
,
I’m a little confused: why would Kafka need to interpret the JSON? IIRC
KIP-11 even says that the TopicConfigData will just store the JSON. I’m
not really making a design recommendation here, just trying to understand
what you’re proposing.
On 4/15/15, 11:20 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt pbrahmbh
proposed broker configs, their types and names
* The Authorizer interface and the Acl structure
* The command line options being added, their name and types
* The new structure of topic config which is being stored in zookeeper
Thanks
Parth
On 4/15/15, 12:53 PM, Parth Brahmbhatt pbrahmbh
?
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
* Yes, Acl pretty much captures everything. Originally I had resource as
part of Acls, we can go back to that.
* The describe can call getAcl and I plan to do so. addAcl is tricky
because the user will have
AM, Gwen Shapira gshap...@cloudera.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
I was following the storm model but I think this is a reasonable
change. I recommend changing the API names to addAcls, removeAcls and
getAcls.
And they probably just
do authorization through a separate CLI?
Thanks,
Jun
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
We could do this but I think its too simplistic plus now we are adding
authorization related options in CLI which I thought everyone wants to
avoid
I looked into the consumer offset storage and it seems like for acl
storage we should not need something as complex. Consumer offset has
different throughput requirements which is why I think it made sense to
move away from zookeeper. Acls on the other hand seldom change and because
of the caching
and TopicConfigCache.
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
://reviews.apache.org/r/34494/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
This vote is now Closed with 4 binding +1s and 4 non binding +1s.
Thanks
Parth
On 5/20/15, 12:04 PM, Joel Koshy jjkosh...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 04:18:49PM +, Parth Brahmbhatt wrote:
Hi,
Opening the voting thread for KIP-11.
Link to the KIP:
https
/server/KafkaConfigConfigDefTest.scala
8014a5a6c362785539f24eb03d77278434614fe6
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34492/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
/src/test/scala/unit/kafka/security/auth/SimpleAclAuthorizerTest.scala
PRE-CREATION
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34493/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
,
Parth Brahmbhatt
PRE-CREATION
core/src/test/scala/unit/kafka/server/KafkaConfigConfigDefTest.scala
71f48c07723e334e6489efab500a43fa93a52d0c
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34492/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
can remove this test by making acl a case class.
core/src/test/scala/unit/kafka/security/auth/ResourceTest.scala
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34492/#comment138523
Same rationale as mentioned few times before for case senstivity.
- Parth Brahmbhatt
On June 3, 2015, 11:36 p.m., Parth
Hi,
Can someone please review the following CRs:
Public entities and interfaces with changes to KafkaAPI and KafkaServer:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34492/diff/
Actual Implementation: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34493/diff/
CLI: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34494/diff/
Thanks
Parth
of the KIP in the
wiki?
Thanks,
Jun
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Parth Brahmbhatt
pbrahmbh...@hortonworks.com wrote:
This vote is now Closed with 4 binding +1s and 4 non binding +1s.
Thanks
Parth
On 5/20/15, 12:04 PM, Joel Koshy jjkosh...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
On Fri, May 15, 2015
---
On May 20, 2015, 8:03 p.m., Parth Brahmbhatt wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34493
3da666f73227fc7ef7093e3790546344065f6825
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34492/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
/34492/#review95934
---
On Aug. 20, 2015, 6:27 p.m., Parth Brahmbhatt wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34492
, 2015, 6:27 p.m., Parth Brahmbhatt wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34492/
---
(Updated Aug. 20, 2015, 6:27 p.m
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34492/#review95942
---
On Aug. 20, 2015, 6:27 p.m., Parth Brahmbhatt wrote
+1 on Gwen¹s suggestion.
Consider this as my thank you for all the reviews everyone has done in
past and are going to do in future. Don¹t make me say thanks on every
single commit. Introducing another process when the project has 50 PR
open pretty much all the time is not really going to help.
---
On Aug. 11, 2015, 1:32 a.m., Parth Brahmbhatt wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34492/
---
(Updated Aug. 11
/security/auth/ResourceTypeTest.scala
PRE-CREATION
core/src/test/scala/unit/kafka/server/KafkaConfigConfigDefTest.scala
PRE-CREATION
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34492/diff/
Testing
---
Thanks,
Parth Brahmbhatt
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks
Parth
On 7/21/15, 10:24 AM, Gwen Shapira gshap...@cloudera.com wrote:
+1 (binding) on using PRs.
It sounds like we need additional discussion on how the transition
will happen. Maybe move that to a separate thread, to keep the vote
easy to follow.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015
1 - 100 of 387 matches
Mail list logo
