Thanks for the reply, Justine and Colin. Sounds good to me. Jun
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 12:54 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Justine, > > Yes, that was what I was thinking. > > best, > Colin > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2024, at 11:11, Justine Olshan wrote: > > My understanding is that the tools that don't rely on ApiVersions should > > still return 0s when it is the correct value. I believe these commands do > > not require this API and thus can show 0 as versions. > > > > Likewise, when the old ApiVersionsRequest is used to describe features, > we > > can't return 0 versions and we won't be able to see group version set. > > However, the new api will return 0 and the group version correctly. > > > > Let me know if this is consistent with your thoughts, Colin. > > > > Justine > > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 10:44 AM Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io.invalid> > wrote: > > > >> Hi, Colin, > >> > >> Thanks for the update. The proposed change seems reasonable to me. Just > one > >> clarification. > >> > >> The KIP can show version 0 of certain features with version-mapping > >> and feature-dependencies. Will that part change? For example, will the > tool > >> show version 0 features with --release-version 3.8 or do we exclude > them. > >> > >> bin/kafka-storage.sh version-mapping --release-version 3.6-IV1 > >> metadata.version=13 (3.6-IV1) transaction.version=0 > group.version=0 > >> kraft.version=0 > >> > >> Jun > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 2:19 PM José Armando García Sancio > >> <jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks for the update Colin. The changes make sense to me. > >> > > >> > Are you planning to update the KIP to reflect this new RPC version? It > >> > would be good to document the semantics explained above in the KIP. > >> > > >> > Thanks! > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 8:22 PM Justine Olshan > >> > <jols...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Ok makes sense. I will update my PR. > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 5:09 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > I think it's better to suppress the response in v3. The issue with > >> > > > modifying it is that there may be scenarios where [1, 1] is the > >> actual > >> > > > supported range, and we'd want to know that. But leaving out the > >> > feature > >> > > > should be OK for older clients (it will be the case with clients > old > >> > enough > >> > > > to send a v0, v1, or v2 ApiVersionsRequest anyway) > >> > > > > >> > > > best, > >> > > > Colin > >> > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024, at 16:46, Justine Olshan wrote: > >> > > > > Thanks Colin, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > This makes sense to me. Namely in the case where we perhaps > don't > >> > want to > >> > > > > support version 0 anymore, we need the range to be able to not > >> > include 0. > >> > > > > (In other words, we can't assume 0 is supported) > >> > > > > It is unfortunate that this change is a bit tricky, but I think > >> it's > >> > the > >> > > > > best option. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Can you clarify > >> > > > >> The server will simply leave out the features whose minimum > >> > supported > >> > > > > value is 0 for clients that send v3 > >> > > > > > >> > > > > For 3.8, I planned to set the 0s in the response to 1. Is it > better > >> > to > >> > > > > suppress the zero version features in the response so we are > >> > consistent > >> > > > > between trunk and 3.8? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > >> > > > > Justine > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 4:34 PM Colin McCabe < > cmcc...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> Hi all, > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> It seems that there was a bug in older versions of Kafka which > >> > caused > >> > > > >> deserialization problems when a supported feature range > included > >> 0. > >> > For > >> > > > >> example, the range for group.version of [0, 1] would be a > problem > >> in > >> > > > this > >> > > > >> situation. > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> This obviously makes supportedVersions kind of useless. Any > >> feature > >> > that > >> > > > >> doesn't exist today is effectively at v0 today (v0 is > equivalent > >> to > >> > > > "off"). > >> > > > >> But if we can't declare that the server supports [0, 1] or > >> similar, > >> > we > >> > > > >> can't declare that it supports the feature being off. > Therefore, > >> no > >> > > > rolling > >> > > > >> upgrades are possible. > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> We noticed this bug during the 3.8 release when we noticed > >> problems > >> > in > >> > > > >> upgrade tests. As an addendum to KIP-1022, we're adding the > >> > following > >> > > > >> solution: > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> - There will be a new v4 for ApiVersionsRequest > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> - Clients that sent v4 will promise to correctly handle ranges > >> that > >> > > > start > >> > > > >> with 0, such as [0, 1] > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> - The server will simply leave out the features whose minimum > >> > supported > >> > > > >> value is 0 for clients that send v3 > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> - ApiVersionsRequest v4 will be supported in AK 3.9 and above. > AK > >> > 3.8 > >> > > > will > >> > > > >> ship with ApiVersionsRequest v3 just as today. > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> thanks, > >> > > > >> Colin > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, at 11:01, Justine Olshan wrote: > >> > > > >> > Hey folks, > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > Thanks everyone! I will go ahead and call it. > >> > > > >> > The KIP passes with the following +1 votes: > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > - Andrew Schofield (non-binding) > >> > > > >> > - David Jacot (binding) > >> > > > >> > - José Armando García Sancio (binding) > >> > > > >> > - Jun Rao (binding) > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > Thanks again, > >> > > > >> > Justine > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 11:16 AM Jun Rao > >> <j...@confluent.io.invalid > >> > > > >> > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> >> Hi, Justine, > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> Thanks for the KIP. +1 > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> Jun > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 9:13 AM José Armando García Sancio > >> > > > >> >> <jsan...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > Hi Justine, > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > +1 (binding) > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > Thanks for the improvement. > >> > > > >> >> > -- > >> > > > >> >> > -José > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > -José > >> > > >> >
