Hi, Justine, Thanks for the updated KIP. A couple of more comments.
20. Could we show the output of version-mapping? 21. "Transaction version 1 will include the flexible fields in the transaction state log, and transaction version 2 will include the changes to the transactional protocol as described by KIP-890 (epoch bumps and implicit add partitions.)" So TV 1 enables the writing of new tagged fields like PrevProducerId? But those fields are only usable after the epoch bump, right? What functionality does TV 1 achieve? Jun On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 2:06 PM Justine Olshan <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > I have also updated the KIP to mention the feature tool's --metadata flag > will be deprecated. > It will still work for users as they learn the new flag, but a warning > indicating the alternatives will be shown. > > Justine > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 11:03 AM Justine Olshan <jols...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > Hi Jun, > > > > For both transaction state and group coordinator state, there are only > > version 0 records. > > KIP-915 introduced flexible versions, but it was never put to use. MV has > > never gated these. This KIP will do that. I can include this context in > the > > KIP. > > > > I'm happy to modify his 1 and 2 to 0 and 1. > > > > Justine > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 10:57 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid> > wrote: > > > >> Hi, David, > >> > >> Thanks for the reply. > >> > >> Historically, the format of all records were controlled by MV. Now, > >> records > >> in _offset_commit will be controlled by `group.coordinator.version`, is > >> that right? It would be useful to document that. > >> > >> Also, we should align on the version numbering. "kafka-feature disable" > >> says "Disable one or more feature flags. This is the same as downgrading > >> the version to zero". So, in the `group.coordinator.version' case, we > >> probably should use version 0 for the old consumer protocol. > >> > >> Jun > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 2:13 AM Andrew Schofield < > >> andrew_schofield_j...@outlook.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi David, > >> > I agree that we should use the same mechanism to gate KIP-932 once > that > >> > feature reaches production readiness. The precise details of the > values > >> > will > >> > depend upon the current state of all these flags when that release > >> comes. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > Andrew > >> > > >> > > On 28 Mar 2024, at 07:11, David Jacot <dja...@confluent.io.INVALID> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Hi, Jun, Justine, > >> > > > >> > > Regarding `group.coordinator.version`, the idea is to use it to gate > >> > > records and APIs of the group coordinator. The first use case will > be > >> > > KIP-848. We will use version 2 of the flag to gate all the new > records > >> > and > >> > > the new ConsumerGroupHeartbeat/Describe APIs present in AK 3.8. So > >> > version > >> > > 1 will be the only the old protocol and version 2 will be the > >> currently > >> > > implemented new protocol. I don't think that we have any dependency > on > >> > the > >> > > metadata version at the moment. The changes are orthogonal. I think > >> that > >> > we > >> > > could mention KIP-848 as the first usage of this flag in the KIP. I > >> will > >> > > also update KIP-848 to include it when this KIP is accepted. Another > >> use > >> > > case is the Queues KIP. I think that we should also use this new > flag > >> to > >> > > gate it. > >> > > > >> > > Best, > >> > > David > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 1:14 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> Hi, Justine, > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks for the reply. > >> > >> > >> > >> So, "dependencies" and "version-mapping" will be added to both > >> > >> kafka-feature and kafka-storage? Could we document that in the tool > >> > format > >> > >> section? > >> > >> > >> > >> Jun > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 4:01 PM Justine Olshan > >> > >> <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Ok. I can remove the info from the describe output. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Dependencies is needed for the storage tool because we want to > make > >> > sure > >> > >>> the desired versions we are setting will be valid. Version mapping > >> > should > >> > >>> be for both tools since we have --release-version for both tools. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> I was considering changing the IV strings, but I wasn't sure if > >> there > >> > >> would > >> > >>> be some disagreement with the decision. Not sure if that breaks > >> > >>> compatibility etc. Happy to hear everyone's thoughts. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Justine > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 3:36 PM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid > > > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> Hi, Justine, > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Thanks for the reply. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Having "kafka-feature dependencies" seems enough to me. We don't > >> need > >> > >> to > >> > >>>> include the dependencies in the output of "kafka-feature > describe". > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> We only support "dependencies" in kafka-feature, not > >> kafka-storage. We > >> > >>>> probably should do the same for "version-mapping". > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> bin/kafka-features.sh downgrade --feature metadata.version=16 > >> > >>>> --transaction.protocol.version=2 > >> > >>>> We need to add the --feature flag for the second feature, right? > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> In "kafka-features.sh describe", we only show the IV string for > >> > >>>> metadata.version. Should we also show the level number? > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Thanks, > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Jun > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 1:52 PM Justine Olshan > >> > >>>> <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> > >> > >>>> wrote: > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>>> I had already included this example > >> > >>>>> bin/kafka-features.sh downgrade --feature metadata.version=16 > >> > >>>>> --transaction.protocol.version=2 // Throws error if metadata > >> version > >> > >>> is < > >> > >>>>> 16, and this would be an upgrade > >> > >>>>> But I have updated the KIP to explicitly say the text you > >> mentioned. > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> Justine > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 1:41 PM José Armando García Sancio > >> > >>>>> <jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>>> Hi Justine, > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> See my comment below. > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 1:31 PM Justine Olshan > >> > >>>>>> <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>>>>>> The feature command includes the upgrade or downgrade command > >> > >> along > >> > >>>>> with > >> > >>>>>>> the --release-version flag. If some features are not moving in > >> > >> the > >> > >>>>>>> direction mentioned (upgrade or downgrade) the command will > fail > >> > >> -- > >> > >>>>>> perhaps > >> > >>>>>>> with an error of which features were going in the wrong > >> > >> direction. > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> How about updating the KIP to show and document this behavior? > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >> > >>>>>> -- > >> > >>>>>> -José > >> > >>>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
