Hi Rajini. Approved, given its low risk and the lack of convenient workarounds.
Konstantine On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:00 AM Rajini Sivaram <rajinisiva...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Konstantine, > > We found an issue with replication with IBP 2.7: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13207. The fix is small and > low > risk and has been merged to trunk. Can we include this in 3.0 branch since > it can result in IllegalStateException during replication? > > Thank you, > > Rajini > > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 6:21 PM Konstantine Karantasis < > kkaranta...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Jose, thanks for the heads up on the 3 new blocker candidates. > > > > I read the tickets and they have clear descriptions and implementation > > details. > > However, at this stage to be able to make a call and approve new blockers > > I'd appreciate it if we could get some insight regarding the risk and the > > necessity of a fix. A rough ETA would also be helpful. > > > > Having said that, based on the descriptions and the existence of a few > > other blockers, I'm tentatively approving KAFKA-13161, KAFKA-13165, and > > KAFKA-13168 and we might have to make a new assessment if these are the > > only blockers in the next few days or if we notice a regression during > > testing. > > > > Konstantine > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 10:04 AM Konstantine Karantasis < > > kkaranta...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks for reporting this new issue Ryan, > > > > > > It's important and this issue seems to have clearly regressed dynamic > > > default configs in the 3.0 branch. > > > So, it's approved. > > > > > > Konstantine > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 4:34 PM José Armando García Sancio > > > <jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > > > >> Hey all, > > >> > > >> For the KIP-500 work for 3.0 we would like to propose the following > > >> Jiras as blockers: > > >> > > >> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13168 > > >> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13165 > > >> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13161 > > >> > > >> The description for each Jira should have more details. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> -Jose > > >> > > >> On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 12:14 PM Ryan Dielhenn > > >> <rdielh...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Hi Konstantine, > > >> > > > >> > I would like to report another bug in KRaft. > > >> > > > >> > The ConfigHandler that processes dynamic broker config deltas in > KRaft > > >> > expects that the default resource name for dynamic broker configs is > > the > > >> > old default entity name used in ZK: "<default>". Since dynamic > default > > >> > broker configs are persisted as empty string in the quorum instead > of > > >> > "<default>", the brokers are not updating the their default > > >> configuration > > >> > when they see empty string as a resource name in the config delta > and > > >> are > > >> > throwing a NumberFormatException when they try to parse the resource > > >> name > > >> > to process it as a per-broker configuration. > > >> > > > >> > I filed a JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-13160 > > >> > > > >> > I also have a PR to fix this: > > >> https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11168 > > >> > > > >> > I think that this should be a blocker for 3.0 because dynamic > default > > >> > broker configs will not be usable in KRaft otherwise. > > >> > > > >> > Best, > > >> > Ryan Dielhenn > > >> > > > >> > On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 10:42 AM Konstantine Karantasis < > > >> > kkaranta...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Thanks Ryan, > > >> > > > > >> > > Approved. Seems also like a low risk fix. > > >> > > With that opportunity, let's make sure there are no other configs > > that > > >> > > would need a similar validation. > > >> > > > > >> > > Konstantine > > >> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 8:33 AM Ryan Dielhenn > > >> > > <rdielh...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hey Konstantine, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks for the question. If these configs are not validated the > > >> user's > > >> > > > experience will be affected and upgrades from 3.0 will be > harder. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Best, > > >> > > > Ryan Dielhenn > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 3:59 PM Konstantine Karantasis < > > >> > > > kkaranta...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks for reporting this issue Ryan. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I believe what you mention corresponds to the ticket you > created > > >> here: > > >> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/KAFKA/issues/KAFKA-13151 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > What happens if the configurations are present but the broker > > >> doesn't > > >> > > > fail > > >> > > > > at startup when configured to run in KRaft mode? > > >> > > > > Asking to see if we have any workarounds in our availability. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > Konstantine > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:51 PM Ryan Dielhenn > > >> > > > > <rdielh...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Disregard log.clean.policy being included in this blocker. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best, > > >> > > > > > Ryan Dielhenn > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:38 PM Ryan Dielhenn < > > >> > > rdielh...@confluent.io> > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hey Konstantine, > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I'd like to report another bug in KRaft. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > log.cleanup.policy, alter.config.policy.class.name, and > > >> > > > > > > create.topic.policy.class.name are all unsupported by > KRaft > > >> but > > >> > > > KRaft > > >> > > > > > > servers allow them to be configured. I believe this should > > be > > >> > > > > considered > > >> > > > > > a > > >> > > > > > > blocker and that KRaft servers should fail startup if any > of > > >> these > > >> > > > are > > >> > > > > > > configured. I do not have a PR yet but will soon. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On another note, I have a PR for the dynamic broker > > >> configuration > > >> > > fix > > >> > > > > > > here: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/11141 > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best, > > >> > > > > > > Ryan Dielhenn > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 2:48 PM Konstantine Karantasis > > >> > > > > > > <konstant...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> Please find below the updated release plan for the Apache > > >> Kafka > > >> > > > 3.0.0 > > >> > > > > > >> release. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=177046466 > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> New suggested dates for the release are as follows: > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> KIP Freeze is 09 June 2021 (same date as in the initial > > plan) > > >> > > > > > >> Feature Freeze is 30 June 2021 (new date, extended by two > > >> weeks) > > >> > > > > > >> Code Freeze is 14 July 2021 (new date, extended by two > > weeks) > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> At least two weeks of stabilization will follow Code > > Freeze. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> The release plan is up to date and currently includes all > > the > > >> > > > approved > > >> > > > > > >> KIPs > > >> > > > > > >> that are targeting 3.0.0. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> Please let me know if you have any objections with the > > recent > > >> > > > > extension > > >> > > > > > of > > >> > > > > > >> Feature Freeze and Code Freeze or any other concerns. > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> Regards, > > >> > > > > > >> Konstantine > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> -Jose > > >> > > > > > >
