Hi, Matthias
Thanks a lot!
So you do not plan so support removing a _single static_ member via
`StreamsResetter`?
=>
Would you mind to elaborate why we still need that if we are able to
batch remove active members with adminClient?
Thanks!
Feyman
------------------------------------------------------------------
发件人：Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org>
发送时间：2020年4月7日(星期二) 08:25
收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>
主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members in
StreamsResetter
Overall LGTM.
+1 (binding)
So you do not plan so support removing a _single static_ member via
`StreamsResetter`? We can of course still add this as a follow up but it
might be nice to just add it to this KIP right away. Up to you if you
want to include it or not.
-Matthias
On 3/30/20 8:16 AM, feyman2009 wrote:
> Hi, Boyang
> Thanks a lot, that make sense, we should not expose member.id in the
> MemberToRemove anymore, I have fixed it in the KIP.
>
>
> Feyman
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 发件人：Boyang Chen <reluctanthero...@gmail.com>
> 发送时间：2020年3月29日(星期日) 01:45
> 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>; feyman2009 <feyman2...@aliyun.com>
> 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members in
> StreamsResetter
>
> Hey Feyman,
>
> thanks for the update. I assume we would rely entirely on the internal
> changes for `removeMemberFromGroup` by sending a DescribeGroup request first.
> With that in mind, I don't think we need to add member.id to MemberToRemove
> anymore, as it is only facing public where users will only configure
> group.instance.id?
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 5:04 PM feyman2009 <feyman2...@aliyun.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> Bump, can anyone kindly take a look at the updated KIP-571? Thanks!
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 发件人：feyman2009 <feyman2...@aliyun.com.INVALID>
> 发送时间：2020年3月23日(星期一) 08:51
> 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>
> 主 题：回复：回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members in
> StreamsResetter
>
> Hi, team
> I have updated the KIP-571 according to our latest discussion results,
> would you mind to take a look? Thanks!
>
> Feyman
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 发件人：Boyang Chen <reluctanthero...@gmail.com>
> 发送时间：2020年3月19日(星期四) 13:41
> 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>; feyman2009 <feyman2...@aliyun.com>
> 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members in
> StreamsResetter
>
> Thanks for the insight Feyman. I personally feel adding another admin client
> command is redundant, so picking option 1). The memberInfos struct is
> internal and just used for result reference purposes. I think it could still
> work even we overload with `removeAll` option, if that makes sense.
>
> Boyang
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 8:51 PM feyman2009 <feyman2...@aliyun.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> Hi, team
> Before going too far on the KIP update, I would like to hear your
> opinions about how we would change the interface of AdminClient, the two
> alternatives I could think of are:
> 1) Extend adminClient.removeMembersFromConsumerGroup to support remove
> all
> As Guochang suggested, we could add some flag param in
> RemoveMembersFromConsumerGroupOptions to indicated the "remove all" logic.
> 2) Add a new API like
> adminClient.removeAllMembersFromConsumerGroup(groupId, options)
>
> I think 1) will be more compact from the API perspective, but looking
> at the code, I found that the if we are going to remove all, then the
> RemoveMembersFromConsumerGroupResult#memberInfos/memberResult()/all() should
> be changed accordingly, and they seem not that meaningful under the "remove
> all" scenario.
>
> A minor thought about the adminClient.removeMembersFromConsumerGroup
> API is:
> Looking at some other deleteXX APIs, like deleteTopics, deleteRecords,
> the results contains only a Map<A, Future<B>>, I think it's enough to
> describe the related results, is it make sense that we may remove memberInfos
> in RemoveMembersFromConsumerGroupResult ? This KIP has no dependency on this
> if we choose alternative 2)
>
> Could you advise? Thanks!
>
> Feyman
>
>
> 送时间：2020年3月15日(星期日) 10:11
> 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>
> 主 题：回复：回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members in
> StreamsResetter
>
> Hi, all
> Thanks a lot for your feedback!
> According to the discussion, it seems we don't have some valid use
> cases for removing specific dynamic members, I think it makes sense to
> encapsulate the "get and delete" logic in adminClient. I will update the KIP
> shortly!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Feyman
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 发件人：Boyang Chen <reluctanthero...@gmail.com>
> 发送时间：2020年3月14日(星期六) 00:39
> 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>
> 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members in
> StreamsResetter
>
> Thanks Matthias and Guozhang for the feedback. I'm not worrying too much
> about the member.id exposure as we have done so in a couple of areas. As
> for the recommended admin client change, I think it makes sense in an
> encapsulation perspective. Maybe I'm still a bit hesitant as we are losing
> the flexibility of closing only a subset of `dynamic members` potentially,
> but we could always get back and address it if some user feels necessary to
> have it.
>
> My short answer would be, LGTM :)
>
> Boyang
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:26 PM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Matthias,
> >
> > About the AdminClient param API: that's a great point here. I think
> overall
> > if users want to just "remove all members" they should not need to first
> > get all the member.ids themselves, but instead internally the admin client
> > can first issue a describe-group request to get all the member.ids, and
> > then use them in the next issued leave-group request, all abstracted away
> > from the users. With that in mind, maybe in
> > RemoveMembersFromConsumerGroupOptions we can just introduce an overloaded
> > flag param besides "members" that indicate "remove all"?
> >
> > Guozhang
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 2:59 PM Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Feyman,
> > >
> > > some more comments/questions:
> > >
> > > The description of `LeaveGroupRequest` is clear but it's unclear how
> > > `MemberToRemove` should behave. Which parameter is required? Which is
> > > optional? What is the relationship between both.
> > >
> > > The `LeaveGroupRequest` description clearly states that specifying a
> > > `memberId` is optional if the `groupInstanceId` is provided. If
> > > `MemberToRemove` applies the same pattern, it must be explicitly defined
> > > in the KIP (and explained in the JavaDocs of `MemberToRemove`) because
> > > we cannot expect that an admin-client users knows that internally a
> > > `LeaveGroupRequest` is used nor what the semantics of a
> > > `LeaveGroupRequest` are.
> > >
> > >
> > > About Admin API:
> > >
> > > In general, I am also confused that we allow so specify a `memberId` at
> > > all, because the `memberId` is an internal id that is not really exposed
> > > to the user. Hence, from a AdminClient point of view, accepting a
> > > `memberId` as input seems questionable to me? Of course, `memberId` can
> > > be collected via `describeConsumerGroups()` but it will return the
> > > `memberId` of _all_ consumer in the group and thus how would a user know
> > > which member should be removed for a dynamic group (if an individual
> > > member should be removed)?
> > >
> > > Hence, how can any user get to know the `memberId` of an individual
> > > client in a programtic way?
> > >
> > > Also I am wondering in general, why the removal of single dynamic member
> > > is important? In general, I would expect a short `session.timeout` for
> > > dynamic groups and thus removing a specific member from the group seems
> > > not to be an important feature -- for static groups we expect a long
> > > `session.timeout` and a user can also identify individual clients via
> > > `groupInstandId`, hence the feature makes sense for this case and is
> > > straight forward to use.
> > >
> > >
> > > About StreamsResetter:
> > >
> > > For this case we just say "remove all members" and thus the
> > > `describeConsumerGroup` approach works. However, it seems to be a
> > > special case?
> > >
> > > Or, if we expected that the "remove all members" use case is the norm,
> > > why can't we make a change admin-client to directly accept a `group.id`?
> > > The admin-client can internal first do a `DescribeGroupRequest` and
> > > afterward corresponding `LeaveGroupRequest` -- i.e., instead of building
> > > this pattern in `StreamsResetter` we build it directly into
> > `AdminClient`.
> > >
> > > Last, for static group the main use case seems to be to remove an
> > > individual member from the group but this feature is not covered by the
> > > KIP: I think using `--force` to remove all members makes sense, but an
> > > important second feature to remove an individual static member would
> > > require it's own flag to specify a single `group.instance.id`.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > > -Matthias
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/11/20 8:43 PM, feyman2009 wrote:
> > > > Hi, Sophie
> > > > For 1) Sorry, I found that my expression is kind of misleading,
> > > what I actually mean is: "if --force not specified, an exception saying
> > > there are still active members on broker side will be thrown and
> > > suggesting using StreamsResetter with --force", I just updated the KIP
> > > page.
> > > >
> > > > For 2)
> > > > I may also had some misleading expression previous, to clarify
> > :
> > > >
> > > > Also, it's more efficient to just send a single "clear the group"
> > > request vs sending a LeaveGroup
> > > > request for every single member. What do you think?
> > > > => the comparison is to send a single "clear the group" request vs
> > > sending a "get members" + a "remove members" request since the
> > > adminClient.removeMembersFromConsumerGroup support batch removal. We
> > > don't need to send lots of leaveGroup requests for every single member.
> > > >
> > > > I can understand your point, but I think we could reuse the
> > > current
> > > > adminClient.removeMembersFromConsumerGroup interface effectively with
> > > the KIP.
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Feyman
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 发件人：Sophie Blee-Goldman <sop...@confluent.io>
> > > > 发送时间：2020年3月10日(星期二) 03:02
> > > > 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>; feyman2009 <feyman2...@aliyun.com>
> > > > 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove
> > > members in StreamsResetter
> > > >
> > > > Hey Feyman,
> > > >
> > > > 1) Regarding point 2 in your last email, if I understand correctly you
> > > propose to change
> > > > the current behavior of the reset tool when --force is not specified,
> > > and wait for (up to)
> > > > the session timeout for all members to be removed. I'm not sure we
> > > should change this,
> > > > especially now that we have a better way to handle the case when the
> > > group is not empty:
> > > > we should continue to throw an exception and fail fast, but can print
> > > a message suggesting
> > > > to use the new --force option to remove remaining group members. Why
> > > make users wait
> > > > for the session timeout when we've just added a new feature that means
> > > they don't have to?
> > > >
> > > > 2) Regarding Matthias' question:
> > > >
> > > >> I am really wondering, if for a static group, we should allow users
> > > toremove individual members? For a dynamic group this feature would not
> > > > make much sense IMHO, because the `memberId` is not know by the user.
> > > >
> > > > I think his point is similar to what I was trying to get at earlier,
> > > with the proposal to add a new
> > > > #removeAllMembers API rather than an API to remove individual members
> > > according to their
> > > > memberId. As he explained, removing based on memberId is likely not
> > > that useful in general.
> > > > Also, it's not actually what we want to do here; maybe we should avoid
> > > adding a new API
> > > > that we think may be useful in other contexts (remove individual
> > > member based on memberId),
> > > > and just add the API we actually need (remove all members from group)
> > > in this KIP? We can
> > > > always add the "remove individual member by memberId" API at a later
> > > point, if it turns out to
> > > > actually be requested for specific reasons?
> > > >
> > > > Also, it's more efficient to just send a single "clear the group"
> > > request vs sending a LeaveGroup
> > > > request for every single member. What do you think?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 1:41 AM feyman2009
> > > <feyman2...@aliyun.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > Hi, Matthias
> > > > Thanks, I updated the KIP to mention the deprecated and newly
> > > added methods.
> > > >
> > > > 1. What happens is `groupInstanceId` is used for a dynamic group?
> What
> > > > happens if both parameters are specified? What happens if `memberId`
> > > > is specified for a static group?
> > > >
> > > > => my understanding is that the dynamic/static membership is member
> > > level other than group level, and I think above questions could be
> > > answered by the "Leave Group Logic Change" section in KIP-345:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-345%3A+Introduce+static+membership+protocol+to+reduce+consumer+rebalances
> > > ,
> > > this KIP stays consistent with KIP-345.
> > > >
> > > > 2. About the `--force` option. Currently, StreamsResetter fails with
> > an
> > > > error if the consumer group is not empty. You state in your KIP that:
> > > >
> > > > > without --force, we need to wait for session timeout.
> > > >
> > > > Is this an intended behavior change if `--force` is not used or is
> the
> > > > KIP description incorrect?
> > > >
> > > > => This is the intended behavior. For this part, I think there are
> > > two ways to go:
> > > > 1) (the implicit way) Not introducing the new "--force" option, with
> > > this KIP, StreamsResetter will by default remove active members(with
> > > long session timeout configured) on broker side
> > > > 2) (the explicit way) Introduce the new "--force" option, users need
> > > to explicitly specify --force to remove the active members. If --force
> > > not specified, the StreamsResetter behaviour is as previous versions'.
> > > >
> > > > I think the two alternatives above are both feasible, personally I
> > > prefer way 2.
> > > >
> > > > 3. For my own understanding: with the `--force` option, we intend to
> > get
> > > > all `memberIds` and send a "remove member" request for each with
> > > > corresponding `memberId` to remove the member from the group
> > > > (independent is the group is static or dynamic)?
> > > >
> > > > => Yeah, minor thing to mention is we will send the "remove member"
> > > request for each member(could be dynamic member or static member) to
> > > remove them from group
> > > > for dynamic members, both "group.instance.id" and "member.id" will be
> > > specified
> > > > for dynamic members, only "member.id" will be specified
> > > >
> > > > 4. I am really wondering, if for a static group, we should allow
> users
> > > to
> > > > remove individual members? For a dynamic group this feature would not
> > > > make much sense IMHO, because the `memberId` is not know by the user.
> > > >
> > > > => KIP-345 introduced the batch removal feature for both static
> > > member and dynamic member, my understanding is that "allow users to
> > > > remove individual members" could be useful for rolling bounce and
> > > scale down accoding to KIP-345. KafkaAdminClient currently only support
> > > static member removal and this KIP-571 enables dynamic member removal
> > > for it, which is also consistent with the broker side logic. Users could
> > > get the member.id (and group.instance.id if for static member) by
> > > adminClient.describeConsumerGroups.
> > > >
> > > > Furthermore, I don't have an assumption that a consumer group should
> > > contain only static or dynamic members, and I think KIP-345 and this KIP
> > > don't need to be based on this assumption.
> > > > You could correct me if I have the wrong understanding :)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Feyman
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 发件人：Matthias J. Sax <mj...@apache.org>
> > > > 发送时间：2020年3月6日(星期五) 02:20
> > > > 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>
> > > > 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove
> > > members in StreamsResetter
> > > >
> > > > Feyman,
> > > >
> > > > thanks a lot for the KIP. Overall LGTM. I have a few more comment and
> > > > questions (sorry for the late reply):
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The KIP mentions that some constructors will be deprecated. Those
> > should
> > > > be listed explicitly. For example:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > public class MemberToRemove {
> > > >
> > > > // deprecated methods
> > > >
> > > > @Deprecated
> > > > public MemberToRemove(String groupInstanceId);
> > > >
> > > > // new methods
> > > >
> > > > public MemberToRemove()
> > > >
> > > > public MemberToRemove withGroupInstanceId(String groupInstanceId)
> > > >
> > > > public MemberToRemove withMemberId(String memberId)
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > What happens is `groupInstanceId` is used for a dynamic group? What
> > > > happens if both parameters are specified? What happens if `memberId`
> > > > is specified for a static group?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > About the `--force` option. Currently, StreamsResetter fails with an
> > > > error if the consumer group is not empty. You state in your KIP that:
> > > >
> > > >> without --force, we need to wait for session timeout.
> > > >
> > > > Is this an intended behavior change if `--force` is not used or is the
> > > > KIP description incorrect?
> > > >
> > > > For my own understanding: with the `--force` option, we intend to get
> > > > all `memberIds` and send a "remove member" request for each with
> > > > corresponding `memberId` to remove the member from the group
> > > > (independent is the group is static or dynamic)?
> > > >
> > > > I am really wondering, if for a static group, we should allow users to
> > > > remove individual members? For a dynamic group this feature would not
> > > > make much sense IMHO, because the `memberId` is not know by the user.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Matthias
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3/5/20 7:15 AM, Bill Bejeck wrote:
> > > >> Thanks for the KIP. +1 (binding).
> > > >
> > > >> -Bill
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 12:40 AM Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> Thanks, +1 from me (binding).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 9:39 PM feyman2009 <feyman2...@aliyun.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Hi, Guozhang Thanks a lot for the advice, that make sense! I
> > > >>>> have updated the KIP page with the operational steps of
> > > >>>> StreamsResetter.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks! Feyman
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > > 发件人：Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com>
> > > >>>> 发送时间：2020年3月3日(星期二) 14:22 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>;
> > > >>>> feyman2009 <feyman2...@aliyun.com> 主 题：Re: 回复：回复：[Vote]
> > > >>>> KIP-571: Add option to force remove members in StreamsResetter
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Hello Feyman, thanks for the proposal!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I read through the doc and overall it looks good to me.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> One minor thing I'd still like to point out is that, the
> > > >>>> "removeMembersFromConsumerGroup" only sends a leave-group
> > > >>>> request to the coordinator to let it remove the member,
> > > >>>> however, if the member is still there alive and running then it
> > > >>>> would soon be notified that it is no
> > > >>> longer
> > > >>>> a legal member of the group via heartbeats, and then
> > > >>>> automatically tries
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>> re-join the group. So on the operational side, it is still
> > > >>>> required that the following steps:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 1) first stop the consumers (of streams instances), wait until
> > > >>>> the shutdown is complete. 2) then use admin client in case the
> > > >>>> stopped consumers are still registered at the broker side and
> > > >>>> we do not want to wait for session timeout.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Even with this KIP, people should still not skip step 1) above,
> > > >>>> since otherwise the consumers would re-connect and re-join the
> > > >>>> group
> > > >>> immediately
> > > >>>> still.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> In your doc you've already mentioned "Furthermore, users should
> > > >>>> make sure all the stream applications are shutdown when running
> > > >>>> StreamsResetter
> > > >>> with
> > > >>>> --force, otherwise it might trigger unexpected rebalance. "
> > > >>>> What I'd want to clarify is that no matter if "--force" option
> > > >>>> is enabled, this is
> > > >>> always
> > > >>>> the case that users should shutdown the streams instances
> > > >>>> first, and then use the streams resetter :)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> As long as that is clarified in the proposal documentation, I'm
> > > >>>> +1 on
> > > >>> this
> > > >>>> KIP.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks again for the contribution, Guozhang
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:31 AM feyman2009
> > > >>>> <feyman2...@aliyun.com.invalid
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> wrote: Hi, John Sorry, I have mistaken the KIP approval
> > > >>>> standard, anyway, I will
> > > >>> start
> > > >>>> the PR soon and waiting for more binding approvals.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks! Feyman
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > > 发件人：John Roesler <vvcep...@apache.org>
> > > >>>> 发送时间：2020年3月2日(星期一) 22:00 收件人：dev
> > > > <dev@kafka.apache.org> 主
> > > >>>> 题：Re: 回复：回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members
> > > >>>> in StreamsResetter
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Hi Feyman,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Sorry, but we actually need 3 binding votes for the KIP to
> > > >>>> pass. Please feel free to keep bumping the thread until some
> > > >>>> more committers can take
> > > >>> a
> > > >>>> look.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> By the way, you can totally start a PR, but we can’t merge it
> > > >>>> until the KIP passes the vote.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks! John
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, at 00:24, feyman2009 wrote:
> > > >>>>> Hi,all Since currently we have 1 binding and two non-binding
> > > >>>>> +1, I will update the KIP-571 as adopted and initiate a PR
> > > >>>>> shortly
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks! Feyman
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > > 发件人：Sophie Blee-Goldman <sop...@confluent.io>
> > > >>>>> 发送时间：2020年2月28日(星期五) 10:17 收件人：dev
> > > > <dev@kafka.apache.org> 主
> > > >>>>> 题：Re: 回复：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members
> > > >>>>> in
> > > >>>> StreamsResetter
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks for the KIP, +1 (non-binding)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 12:40 PM Boyang Chen <
> > > >>> reluctanthero...@gmail.com
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Thanks Feyman, +1 (non-binding)
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:25 AM John Roesler
> > > >>>>>> <vvcep...@apache.org>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Thanks for the proposal!
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I'm +1 (binding) -John
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020, at 19:41, feyman2009 wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> Updated with the KIP link:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-571%3A+Add+opti
> > > > on+to+force+remove+members+in+StreamsResetter
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>>> 发件人：feyman2009 <feyman2...@aliyun.com.INVALID> 发送时
> > > >>>>>>>> 间：2020年2月27日(星期四) 09:38 收件人：dev <dev@kafka.apache.org>
> > > >>>>>>>> 主 题：[Vote] KIP-571: Add option to force remove members
> > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>> StreamsResetter
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Hi, all I would like to start a vote on KIP-571: Add
> > > >>>>>>>> option to force
> > > >>>> remove
> > > >>>>>>>> members in StreamsResetter .
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Thanks! Feyman
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> -- -- Guozhang
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -- -- Guozhang
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > -- Guozhang
> >
>
>
>
>
>
