Hi, Jeff, Thanks for the reply.
1. There are 3 references of "// KIP-915 do not bump the version" in green in the KIP. Are those expected? 2. So, does that mean downgrade doesn't support the removal of a non-tagged field? Thanks, Jun On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 2:57 PM Jeff Kim <jeff....@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > Hi Ismael and Jun, > > Thank you for the comments. > > Ismael, > > I updated the KIP with "note: we will need commitment from > release managers to perform the minor releases". > Let me know your thoughts. > > Jun, > > 1. I am unsure where the KIP states that we will not bump the version > of TransactionLogValue. The KIP proposes to bump all Value > record types, so that statement should be removed. > > 2. Deserialization starts by iterating through the list of tagged fields > then identifying ones that the schema knows about. So, even if the > downgraded > schema expects a tagged field, if it doesn't exist in the record > (removed in later version) then it is ignored. > > Best, > Jeff > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 5:16 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > > > Hi, Jeff, > > > > Thanks for the KIP. A couple of comments. > > > > 1. The comment says that KIP-915 does not bump the version of > > TransactionLogValue.json, but the schema seems to bump the version from 0 > > to 1. > > > > 2. How do we support downgrade when a field is removed? Does it require > the > > removed field to have a default? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jun > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:49 AM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm late to this conversation, but it's a bit odd to backport the > > flexible > > > versions change to "3.0.3, 3.1.3, 3.2.4, 3.3.3, and 3.4.1" unless we > > intend > > > to release an update for each of these. So, I suggest that either we > > commit > > > to releasing an update for each of these versions or we reduce the set > of > > > versions we backport the change to. > > > > > > Ismael > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 4:57 PM Jeff Kim <jeff....@confluent.io.invalid > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion thread for KIP-915: Next Gen Group > > > > Coordinator Downgrade Path which proposes the downgrade design for > the > > > new > > > > group coordinator introduced in KIP-848 > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-848%3A+The+Next+Generation+of+the+Consumer+Rebalance+Protocol > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > KIP: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-915%3A+Next+Gen+Group+Coordinator+Downgrade+Path > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > >
