Thanks everyone for the votes. I am going to close this with +5 binding (me, Colin, Boyang, Jun, and Ismael) and none against.
@Jun Yes, I think it makes sense to expose the usual request metrics for the new APIs. Best, Jason On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:30 AM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Thanks for the KIP, +1 (binding). A couple of comments: > > 1. We have "quorum.voters=1@kafka-1:9092, 2@kafka-2:9092, > 3@kafka-3:9092". Could > this be a bit confusing given that the authority part of a url is defined > as "authority = [userinfo@]host[:port]"? > 2. With regards to the Quorum State file, do we have anything that helps us > detect corruption? > > Ismael > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 11:03 AM Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > Hi All, I'd like to start a vote on this proposal: > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-595%3A+A+Raft+Protocol+for+the+Metadata+Quorum > > . > > The discussion has been active for a bit more than 3 months and I think > the > > main points have been addressed. We have also moved some of the pieces > into > > follow-up proposals, such as KIP-630. > > > > Please keep in mind that the details are bound to change as all of > > the pieces start coming together. As usual, we will keep this thread > > notified of such changes. > > > > For me personally, this is super exciting since we have been thinking > about > > this work ever since I started working on Kafka! I am +1 of course. > > > > Best, > > Jason > > >
