Hi, Kowshik, Thanks for the follow up. Both look good to me.
For 2, it would be useful to also add that an admin should make sure that no clients are using a deprecated feature version (e.g. using the client version metric) before deploying a release that deprecates it. Thanks, Jun On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 3:46 PM Kowshik Prakasam <kpraka...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hi Jun, > > I have added the following details in the KIP-584 write up: > > 1. Deployment, IBP deprecation and avoidance of double rolls. This section > talks about the various phases of work that would be required to use this > KIP to eventually avoid Broker double rolls in the cluster (whenever IBP > values are advanced). Link to section: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-Deployment,IBPdeprecationandavoidanceofdoublerolls > . > > 2. Feature version deprecation. This section explains the idea for feature > version deprecation (using highest supported feature min version) which you > had proposed during code review: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-Featureversiondeprecation > . > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > > Cheers, > Kowshik > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 11:07 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Hi, Kowshik, > > > > Thanks for the update. Regarding enabling a single rolling restart in the > > future, could we sketch out a bit how this will work by treating IBP as a > > feature? For example, IBP currently uses the release version and this KIP > > uses an integer for versions. How do we bridge the gap between the two? > > Does min.version still make sense for IBP as a feature? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jun > > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:57 PM Kowshik Prakasam <kpraka...@confluent.io > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Colin, > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback. Those are very good points. I have made the > > > following changes to the KIP as you had suggested: > > > 1. Included the `timeoutMs` field in the `UpdateFeaturesRequest` > schema. > > > The initial implementation won't be making use of the field, but we can > > > always use it in the future as the need arises. > > > 2. Modified the `FinalizedFeaturesEpoch` field in `ApiVersionsResponse` > > to > > > use int64. This is to avoid overflow problems in the future once ZK is > > > gone. > > > > > > I have also incorporated these changes into the versioning write path > PR > > > that is currently under review: > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/9001. > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Kowshik > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 4:57 PM Kowshik Prakasam < > kpraka...@confluent.io > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Jun, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the feedback. It's a very good point. I have now modified > > the > > > > KIP-584 write-up "goals" section a bit. It now mentions one of the > > goals > > > as > > > > enabling rolling upgrades using a single restart (instead of 2). > Also I > > > > have removed the text explicitly aiming for deprecation of IBP. Note > > that > > > > previously under "Potential features in Kafka" the IBP was mentioned > > > under > > > > point (4) as a possible coarse-grained feature. Hopefully, now the 2 > > > > sections of the KIP align with each other well. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Kowshik > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:03 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, at 00:43, Kowshik Prakasam wrote: > > > >> > Hi all, > > > >> > > > > >> > I wanted to let you know that I have made the following changes to > > the > > > >> > KIP-584 write up. The purpose is to ensure the design is correct > > for a > > > >> few > > > >> > things which came up during implementation: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> Hi Kowshik, > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for the updates. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > 1. Per FeatureUpdate error code: The UPDATE_FEATURES controller > API > > is > > > >> no > > > >> > longer transactional. Going forward, we allow for individual > > > >> FeatureUpdate > > > >> > to succeed/fail in the request. As a result, the response schema > now > > > >> > contains an error code per FeatureUpdate as well as a top-level > > error > > > >> code. > > > >> > Overall this is a better design because it better represents the > > > nature > > > >> of > > > >> > the API: each FeatureUpdate in the request is independent of the > > other > > > >> > updates, and the controller can process/apply these independently > to > > > ZK. > > > >> > When an UPDATE_FEATURES request fails, this new design provides > > better > > > >> > clarity to the caller on which FeatureUpdate could not be applied > > (via > > > >> the > > > >> > individual error codes). In the previous design, we were unable to > > > >> achieve > > > >> > such an increased level of clarity in communicating the error > codes. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> OK > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > 2. Due to #1, there were some minor changes required to the > proposed > > > >> Admin > > > >> > APIs (describeFeatures and updateFeatures). A few unnecessary > public > > > >> APIs > > > >> > have been removed, and couple essential ones have been added. The > > > latest > > > >> > changes now represent the latest design. > > > >> > > > > >> > 3. The timeoutMs field has been removed from the the > UPDATE_FEATURES > > > API > > > >> > request, since it was not found to be required during > > implementation. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> Please don't get rid of timeoutMs. timeoutMs is required if you > want > > to > > > >> implement the ability to timeout the call if the controller can't > get > > > to it > > > >> in time. This is important for avoiding congestion collapse where > the > > > >> controller collapses under the weight of lots of retries of the same > > > set of > > > >> calls. > > > >> > > > >> We may not be able to do it in the initial implementation, but we > will > > > >> eventually implement this for all the controller-bound RPCs. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > 2. Finalized feature version epoch data type has been made to be > > > int32 > > > >> > > (instead of int64). The reason is that the epoch value is the > > value > > > >> of ZK > > > >> > > node version, whose data type is int32. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> Sorry, I missed this earlier. Using 16 bit feature levels seems > fine. > > > >> However, please don't use a 32-bit epoch here. We deliberately made > > the > > > >> epoch 64 bits to avoid overflow problems in the future once ZK is > > gone. > > > >> > > > >> best, > > > >> Colin > > > >> > > > >> > > 3. Introduced a new 'status' field in the '/features' ZK node > > > schema. > > > >> The > > > >> > > purpose is to implement Colin's earlier point for the strategy > for > > > >> > > transitioning from not having a /features znode to having one. > An > > > >> > > explanation has been provided in the following section of the > KIP > > > >> detailing > > > >> > > the different cases: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-FeatureZKnodestatus > > > >> > > . > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Cheers, > > > >> > > Kowshik > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Cheers, > > > >> > > Kowshik > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 11:24 PM Kowshik Prakasam < > > > >> kpraka...@confluent.io> > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > >> Hi all, > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> This KIP vote has been open for ~12 days. The summary of the > > votes > > > is > > > >> > >> that we have 3 binding votes (Colin, Guozhang, Jun), and 3 > > > >> non-binding > > > >> > >> votes (David, Dhruvil, Boyang). Therefore, the KIP vote passes. > > > I'll > > > >> mark > > > >> > >> KIP as accepted and start working on the implementation. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> Thanks a lot! > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> Cheers, > > > >> > >> Kowshik > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:15 PM Colin McCabe < > > cmcc...@apache.org> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>> Thanks, Kowshik. +1 (binding) > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> best, > > > >> > >>> Colin > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020, at 13:20, Kowshik Prakasam wrote: > > > >> > >>> > Hi Colin, > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > Thanks for the explanation! I agree with you, and I have > > updated > > > >> the > > > >> > >>> > KIP. > > > >> > >>> > Here is a link to relevant section: > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features#KIP-584:Versioningschemeforfeatures-Controller:ZKnodebootstrapwithdefaultvalues > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > Cheers, > > > >> > >>> > Kowshik > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 8:50 PM Colin McCabe < > > > cmcc...@apache.org> > > > >> > >>> wrote: > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020, at 00:01, Kowshik Prakasam wrote: > > > >> > >>> > > > (Kowshik): Great point! However for case #1, I'm not > sure > > > why > > > >> we > > > >> > >>> need to > > > >> > >>> > > > create a '/features' ZK node with disabled features. > > > Instead, > > > >> do > > > >> > >>> you see > > > >> > >>> > > > any drawback if we just do not create it? i.e. if IBP is > > > less > > > >> than > > > >> > >>> 2.6, > > > >> > >>> > > the > > > >> > >>> > > > controller treats the case as though the versioning > system > > > is > > > >> > >>> completely > > > >> > >>> > > > disabled, and would not create a non-existing > '/features' > > > >> node. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > Hi Kowshik, > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > When the IBP is less than 2.6, but the software has been > > > >> upgraded to > > > >> > >>> a > > > >> > >>> > > state where it supports this KIP, that > > > >> > >>> > > means the user is upgrading from an earlier version of > the > > > >> > >>> software. In > > > >> > >>> > > this case, we want to start with all the features disabled > > and > > > >> allow > > > >> > >>> the > > > >> > >>> > > user to enable them when they are ready. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > Enabling all the possible features immediately after an > > > upgrade > > > >> > >>> could be > > > >> > >>> > > harmful to the cluster. On the other hand, for a new > > cluster, > > > >> we do > > > >> > >>> want > > > >> > >>> > > to enable all the possible features immediately . I was > > > >> proposing > > > >> > >>> this as a > > > >> > >>> > > way to distinguish the two cases (since the new cluster > will > > > >> never be > > > >> > >>> > > started with an old IBP). > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > Colin MccCabe wrote: > > > >> > >>> > > > > And now, something a little bit bigger (sorry). For > > > >> finalized > > > >> > >>> > > features, > > > >> > >>> > > > > why do we need both min_version_level and > > > max_version_level? > > > >> > >>> Assuming > > > >> > >>> > > that > > > >> > >>> > > > > we want all the brokers to be on the same feature > > version > > > >> level, > > > >> > >>> we > > > >> > >>> > > really only care > > > >> > >>> > > > > about three numbers for each feature, right? The > > minimum > > > >> > >>> supported > > > >> > >>> > > version > > > >> > >>> > > > > level, the maximum supported version level, and the > > > current > > > >> > >>> active > > > >> > >>> > > version level. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > We don't actually want different brokers to be on > > > different > > > >> > >>> versions of > > > >> > >>> > > > > the same feature, right? So we can just have one > number > > > for > > > >> > >>> current > > > >> > >>> > > > > version level, rather than two. At least that's what > I > > > was > > > >> > >>> thinking > > > >> > >>> > > -- let > > > >> > >>> > > > > me know if I missed something. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > (Kowshik): It is my understanding that the "current > active > > > >> version > > > >> > >>> level" > > > >> > >>> > > > that you have mentioned, is the "max_version_level". But > > we > > > >> still > > > >> > >>> > > > maintain/publish both min and max version levels, > because, > > > the > > > >> > >>> detail > > > >> > >>> > > about > > > >> > >>> > > > min level is useful to external clients. This is > described > > > >> below. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > For any feature F, think of the closed range: > > > >> [min_version_level, > > > >> > >>> > > > max_version_level] as the range of finalized versions, > > > that's > > > >> > >>> guaranteed > > > >> > >>> > > to > > > >> > >>> > > > be supported by all brokers in the cluster. > > > >> > >>> > > > - "max_version_level" is the finalized highest common > > > version > > > >> > >>> among all > > > >> > >>> > > > brokers, > > > >> > >>> > > > - "min_version_level" is the finalized lowest common > > > version > > > >> > >>> among all > > > >> > >>> > > > brokers. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > Next, think of "client" here as the "user of the new > > feature > > > >> > >>> versions > > > >> > >>> > > > system". Imagine that such a client learns about > finalized > > > >> feature > > > >> > >>> > > > versions, and exercises some logic based on the version. > > > These > > > >> > >>> clients > > > >> > >>> > > can > > > >> > >>> > > > be of 2 types: > > > >> > >>> > > > 1. Some part of the broker code itself could behave > like a > > > >> client > > > >> > >>> trying > > > >> > >>> > > to > > > >> > >>> > > > use some feature that's "internal" to the broker > cluster. > > > >> Such a > > > >> > >>> client > > > >> > >>> > > > would learn the latest finalized features via ZK. > > > >> > >>> > > > 2. An external system (ex: Streams) could behave like a > > > >> client, > > > >> > >>> trying to > > > >> > >>> > > > use some "external" facing feature. Such a client would > > > learn > > > >> > >>> latest > > > >> > >>> > > > finalized features via ApiVersionsRequest. Ex: > > > >> group_coordinator > > > >> > >>> feature > > > >> > >>> > > > described in the KIP. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > Next, imagine that for F, the max_version_level is > > > >> successfully > > > >> > >>> bumped by > > > >> > >>> > > > +1 (via Controller API). Now it is guaranteed that all > > > brokers > > > >> > >>> (i.e. > > > >> > >>> > > > internal clients) understand max_version_level + 1. > > However, > > > >> it is > > > >> > >>> still > > > >> > >>> > > > not guaranteed that all external clients have support > for > > > (or > > > >> have > > > >> > >>> > > > activated) the logic for the newer version. Why? > Because, > > > >> this is > > > >> > >>> > > > subjective as explained next: > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > 1. On one hand, imagine F as an internal feature only > > > >> relevant to > > > >> > >>> > > Brokers. > > > >> > >>> > > > The binary for the internal client logic is controlled > by > > > >> Broker > > > >> > >>> cluster > > > >> > >>> > > > deployments. When shipping a new Broker release, we > > wouldn't > > > >> bump > > > >> > >>> max > > > >> > >>> > > > "supported" feature version for F by 1, unless we have > > > >> introduced > > > >> > >>> some > > > >> > >>> > > new > > > >> > >>> > > > logic (with a potentially breaking change) in the > Broker. > > > >> > >>> Furthermore, > > > >> > >>> > > such > > > >> > >>> > > > feature logic in the broker should/will not be > implemented > > > in > > > >> a > > > >> > >>> way that > > > >> > >>> > > it > > > >> > >>> > > > would activate logic for an older feature version after > it > > > has > > > >> > >>> migrated > > > >> > >>> > > to > > > >> > >>> > > > using the logic for a newer feature version (because > this > > > >> could > > > >> > >>> break the > > > >> > >>> > > > cluster!). For these cases, max_version_level will be > very > > > >> useful > > > >> > >>> for > > > >> > >>> > > > decision making. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > 2. On the other hand, imagine F as an external facing > > > feature. > > > >> > >>> External > > > >> > >>> > > > clients are not within the control of Broker cluster. An > > > >> external > > > >> > >>> client > > > >> > >>> > > > may not have upgraded it's code (yet) to use > > > >> 'max_version_level + > > > >> > >>> 1'. > > > >> > >>> > > But, > > > >> > >>> > > > the Kafka cluster could have been deployed with support > > for > > > >> > >>> > > > 'max_version_level + 1' of an external facing feature. > > Now, > > > >> these > > > >> > >>> > > external > > > >> > >>> > > > clients (until an upgrade) are benefitted in learning > > "what > > > >> is the > > > >> > >>> lowest > > > >> > >>> > > > common version for F among all brokers?". This is where > > the > > > >> > >>> > > > "min_version_level" becomes useful. Using this, a client > > > could > > > >> > >>> learn the > > > >> > >>> > > > specific supported versions that's lower than > > > >> max_version_level > > > >> > >>> (instead > > > >> > >>> > > of > > > >> > >>> > > > assuming that all brokers support the range: [1, > > > >> > >>> max_version_level]). For > > > >> > >>> > > > example, if the cluster deprecates "min_version_level", > > then > > > >> the > > > >> > >>> client > > > >> > >>> > > > becomes aware because it periodically learns the latest > > > >> > >>> > > "min_version_level" > > > >> > >>> > > > via ApiVersionsRequest. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > Thanks for the explanation. I agree that this does make > > sense > > > >> when > > > >> > >>> you > > > >> > >>> > > take the client perspective into account. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > best, > > > >> > >>> > > Colin > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > Cheers, > > > >> > >>> > > > Kowshik > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:07 PM Colin McCabe < > > > >> cmcc...@apache.org> > > > >> > >>> > > wrote: > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > Hi Kowshik, > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > Thanks again for working on this-- it looks great. I > > went > > > >> over > > > >> > >>> the KIP > > > >> > >>> > > > > again and have a few more comments. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > === > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > It would be good to note that deprecating a feature > > > version > > > >> (in > > > >> > >>> other > > > >> > >>> > > > > words, increasing minVersionLevel on the broker) is an > > > >> > >>> incompatible > > > >> > >>> > > change, > > > >> > >>> > > > > which requires a major release of Kafka. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > === > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > I think the strategy for transitioning from not > having a > > > >> > >>> /features > > > >> > >>> > > znode > > > >> > >>> > > > > to having one could use some work. The current > proposal > > is > > > >> to > > > >> > >>> wait for > > > >> > >>> > > all > > > >> > >>> > > > > the brokers to fill in their feature znodes and then > > pick > > > >> the > > > >> > >>> highest > > > >> > >>> > > > > common versions. But that requires blocking in the > > > >> controller > > > >> > >>> startup > > > >> > >>> > > code > > > >> > >>> > > > > until the whole cluster is active (technically, a > point > > in > > > >> time > > > >> > >>> which > > > >> > >>> > > we > > > >> > >>> > > > > never really know that we have reached...) > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > Instead, I think it would be better to have a strategy > > > like > > > >> this: > > > >> > >>> > > > > 1. If the controller comes up and there is no > /features > > > >> znode > > > >> > >>> AND the > > > >> > >>> > > IBP > > > >> > >>> > > > > is less than 2.6, create a /features znode where all > the > > > >> > >>> features are > > > >> > >>> > > > > disabled. > > > >> > >>> > > > > 2. If the controller comes up and there is no > /features > > > >> znode > > > >> > >>> AND the > > > >> > >>> > > IBP > > > >> > >>> > > > > is greater than or equal to 2.6, create a /features > > znode > > > >> where > > > >> > >>> all the > > > >> > >>> > > > > features are enabled at the highest versions supported > > by > > > >> the > > > >> > >>> > > controller. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > People upgrading from the pre-KIP-584 > > > >> > >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KIP-584> > > > >> > >>> > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KIP-584> world > > > will > > > >> end > > > >> > >>> up in > > > >> > >>> > > case > > > >> > >>> > > > > #1 because they have to do a double roll to upgrade, > and > > > >> during > > > >> > >>> the > > > >> > >>> > > first > > > >> > >>> > > > > roll, the IBP is unchanged. People creating new > > clusters > > > >> from > > > >> > >>> scratch > > > >> > >>> > > will > > > >> > >>> > > > > end up in case #2, which is what we want since we > don't > > > >> want a > > > >> > >>> brand > > > >> > >>> > > new > > > >> > >>> > > > > cluster to be using old feature flag versions. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > === > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > UpdateFeaturesResponse#ErrorMessage should specify > > > >> > >>> nullableVersions > > > >> > >>> > > since > > > >> > >>> > > > > null is a valid value here > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > Also, in the message format, the tags we use need to > > start > > > >> at 0. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > === > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > I don't think we need the FEATURE_UPDATE_IN_PROGRESS > > error > > > >> > >>> code. The > > > >> > >>> > > > > controller is basically single-threaded and will only > do > > > >> one of > > > >> > >>> these > > > >> > >>> > > > > operations at once. Even if it weren't, though, we > > could > > > >> simply > > > >> > >>> block > > > >> > >>> > > the > > > >> > >>> > > > > second operation behind the first one. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > === > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > For updateFeatures, it would be good to specify that > if > > a > > > >> single > > > >> > >>> > > feature > > > >> > >>> > > > > version update in the batch can't be done, none of > them > > > are > > > >> > >>> done. I > > > >> > >>> > > think > > > >> > >>> > > > > this was the intention, but I wasn't able to find it > > > >> spelled out > > > >> > >>> > > (maybe i > > > >> > >>> > > > > missed it). > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > === > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > And now, something a little bit bigger (sorry). For > > > >> finalized > > > >> > >>> > > features, > > > >> > >>> > > > > why do we need both min_version_level and > > > max_version_level? > > > >> > >>> Assuming > > > >> > >>> > > that > > > >> > >>> > > > > we want all the brokers to be on the same feature > > version > > > >> level, > > > >> > >>> we > > > >> > >>> > > really > > > >> > >>> > > > > only care about three numbers for each feature, right? > > > The > > > >> > >>> minimum > > > >> > >>> > > > > supported version level, the maximum supported version > > > >> level, > > > >> > >>> and the > > > >> > >>> > > > > current active version level. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > We don't actually want different brokers to be on > > > different > > > >> > >>> versions of > > > >> > >>> > > > > the same feature, right? So we can just have one > number > > > for > > > >> > >>> current > > > >> > >>> > > > > version level, rather than two. At least that's what > I > > > was > > > >> > >>> thinking > > > >> > >>> > > -- let > > > >> > >>> > > > > me know if I missed something. > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > best, > > > >> > >>> > > > > Colin > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020, at 13:01, Dhruvil Shah wrote: > > > >> > >>> > > > > > Thanks for the KIP! +1 (non-binding) > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:09 AM David Jacot < > > > >> > >>> dja...@confluent.io> > > > >> > >>> > > wrote: > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > Great KIP, thanks! +1 (non-binding) > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 8:56 PM Guozhang Wang < > > > >> > >>> wangg...@gmail.com> > > > >> > >>> > > > > wrote: > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > Thanks for the great KIP Kowshik, +1 (binding). > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:22 AM Jun Rao < > > > >> j...@confluent.io > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > wrote: > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > Hi, Kowshik, > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP. +1 > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > Jun > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 11:14 AM Kowshik > > Prakasam > > > < > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > kpraka...@confluent.io> > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to start a vote for KIP-584 > > > >> > >>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KIP-584> > > > >> > >>> > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KIP-584>. The > > link > > > >> to > > > >> > >>> the KIP > > > >> > >>> > > can > > > >> > >>> > > > > be > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > found > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > here: > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-584%3A+Versioning+scheme+for+features > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > . > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > Kowshik > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > -- > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > -- Guozhang > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
