+1 (non-binding)
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 11:10 AM Harsha Chintalapani <ka...@harsha.io> wrote: > > +1 ( binding). Much needed! > -Harsha > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:17 PM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 （binding） > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 1:55 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Yeah that makes sense, it is a good-to-have if we can push through this in > > 2.5 but if we do not have bandwidth that's fine too :) > > > > Guozhang > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 1:40 PM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > Hi Guozhang, > > > > Thank you for your input. > > > > 1) You're right. I've put it there due to the version bump only. I'll make > > it clearer. > > > > 2) I'd rather prefer to keep the scope as it is because 1) that field is > > not related to > > the problem that we are solving here and 2) I am not sure that I will have > > the > > bandwidth to do this before the feature freeze. The PR is already ready. > > That being > > said, as the addition of that field is part of KIP-429 and KIP-429 has > > already been > > accepted, we could give it a shot to avoid having to bump the version > > twice. I could > > try putting together a PR before the feature freeze but without guarantee. > > Does that > > make sense? > > > > David > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:44 AM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello David, > > > > Thanks for the KIP! I have read through the proposal and had one minor > > > > and > > > > one meta comment. But overall it looks good to me! > > > > 1) The JoinGroupRequest format does not have any new fields proposed, > > > > so we > > > > could either clarify that it is listed here but without modifications > > > > (only > > > > version bumps) or just remove it from the wiki. > > > > 2) Could we consider adding a "protocol version" to allow brokers to > > > > select > > > > the leader with the highest version? This thought is brought up in > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ > > KIP-429%3A+Kafka+Consumer+Incremental+Rebalance+Protocol#KIP-429:KafkaConsumerIncrementalRebalanceProtocol-LookingintotheFuture:AssignorVersion > > > > . > > I'm fine with keeping this KIP's scope as is, just wondering if you feel > > comfortable piggy-backing this change as well if we are going to bump up > > the JoinGroupReq/Response anyways. > > > > Guozhang > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:10 AM Eno Thereska <eno.there...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > This is awesome! +1 (non binding) > > Eno > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:00 PM Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > > > > wrote: > > > > Thank you for the KIP. Awesomely cloud-native improvement :) > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 9:35 AM David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io> > > > > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to start a vote on KIP-559: Make the Kafka Protocol > > > > Friendlier > > > > with L7 Proxies. > > > > The KIP is here: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/ > > KIP-559%3A+Make+the+Kafka+Protocol+Friendlier+with+L7+Proxies > > > > Thanks, > > David > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang > > > > -- > > -- Guozhang > >
