(adding the dev list back - as it seems to have gotten dropped earlier in this thread)
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > This is a very well-written KIP! > Minor: there is still a mix of terms in the doc that references the > earlier LeaderGenerationRequest (which is what I'm assuming what it was > called in previous versions of the wiki). Same for the diagrams which I'm > guessing are a little harder to make consistent with the text. > > > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > >> Hi, Ben, >> >> Thanks for the updated KIP. +1 >> >> 1) In OffsetForLeaderEpochResponse, start_offset probably should be >> end_offset since it's the end offset of that epoch. >> 3) That's fine. We can fix KAFKA-1120 separately. >> >> Jun >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Ben Stopford <b...@confluent.io> wrote: >> >> > Hi Jun >> > >> > Thanks for raising these points. Thorough as ever! >> > >> > 1) Changes made as requested. >> > 2) Done. >> > 3) My plan for handing returning leaders is to simply to force the >> Leader >> > Epoch to increment if a leader returns. I don't plan to fix KAFKA-1120 >> as >> > part of this KIP. It is really a separate issue with wider implications. >> > I'd be happy to add KAFKA-1120 into the release though if we have time. >> > 4) Agreed. Not sure exactly how that's going to play out, but I think >> we're >> > on the same page. >> > >> > Please could >> > >> > Cheers >> > B >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 12:50 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi, Ben, >> > > >> > > Thanks for the proposal. Looks good overall. A few comments below. >> > > >> > > 1. For LeaderEpochRequest, we need to include topic right? We probably >> > want >> > > to follow other requests by nesting partition inside topic? For >> > > LeaderEpochResponse, >> > > do we need to return leader_epoch? I was thinking that we could just >> > return >> > > an end_offset, which is the next offset of the last message in the >> > > requested leader generation. Finally, would >> OffsetForLeaderEpochRequest >> > be >> > > a better name? >> > > >> > > 2. We should bump up both the produce request and the fetch request >> > > protocol version since both include the message set. >> > > >> > > 3. Extending LeaderEpoch to include Returning Leaders: To support >> this, >> > do >> > > you plan to use the approach that stores CZXID in the broker >> > registration >> > > and including the CZXID of the leader in /brokers/topics/[topic]/ >> > > partitions/[partitionId]/state in ZK? >> > > >> > > 4. Since there are a few other KIPs involving message format too, it >> > would >> > > be useful to consider if we could combine the message format changes >> in >> > the >> > > same release. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > >> > > Jun >> > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Ben Stopford <b...@confluent.io> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi All >> > > > >> > > > We’re having some problems with this thread being subsumed by the >> > > > [Discuss] thread. Hopefully this one will appear distinct. If you >> see >> > > more >> > > > than one, please use this one. >> > > > >> > > > KIP-101 should now be ready for a vote. As a reminder the KIP >> proposes >> > a >> > > > change to the replication protocol to remove the potential for >> replicas >> > > to >> > > > diverge. >> > > > >> > > > The KIP can be found here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confl >> > > > uence/display/KAFKA/KIP-101+-+Alter+Replication+Protocol+to+ >> > > > use+Leader+Epoch+rather+than+High+Watermark+for+Truncation < >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-101+- >> > > > +Alter+Replication+Protocol+to+use+Leader+Epoch+rather+ >> > > > than+High+Watermark+for+Truncation> >> > > > >> > > > Please let us know your vote. >> > > > >> > > > B >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
