Hi all, The vote has passed with +5 binding votes (Jason Gustafson, David Arthur, Gwen Shapira, Guozhang Wang, Harsha Chintalapani) and +2 non-binding votes (Eno Thereska, Satish Duggana).
Thanks to everyone! Best, David On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 10:46 PM Satish Duggana <satish.dugg...@gmail.com> wrote: > +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 > > > >
