Reviewed the latest patch in KAFKA-1809 :). Thanks,
Jun On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Thanks for validating our ideas. Updated the KIP with the workflow. > > Now if you can nudge Jun to review the latest patch... ;) > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > Oh yeah I think that is better, I hadn't thought of that approach! Any > way > > you could describe the usage in the KIP, just for completeness? > > > > -Jay > > > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com> > > wrote: > > > >> I think what you described was the original design, so no wonder you > >> are confused :) > >> > >> Following suggestions from Jun, I changed it a bit. The current model > is: > >> > >> - Clients (producers and consumers) need to know about the broker > >> ports in advance. They don't need to know about all brokers, but they > >> need to know at least one host:port pair that speaks the protocol they > >> want to use. The change is that all host:port pairs in broker.list > >> must be of the same protocol and match the security.protocol > >> configuration parameter. > >> > >> - Client uses security.protocol configuration parameter to open a > >> connection to one of the brokers and sends the good old > >> MetadataRequest. The broker knows which port it got the connection on, > >> therefore it knows which security protocol is expected (it needs to > >> use the same protocol to accept the connection and respond), and > >> therefore it can send a response that contains only the host:port > >> pairs that are relevant to that protocol. > >> > >> - From the client side the MetadataResponse did not change - it > >> contains a list of brokerId,host,port that the client can connect to. > >> The fact that all those broker endpoints were chosen out of a larger > >> collection to match the right protocol is irrelevant for the client. > >> > >> I really like the new design since it preserves a lot of the same > >> configurations and APIs. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> Gwen > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > I think I am still confused. In addition to the UpdateMetadataRequest > >> don't > >> > we have to change the MetadataResponse so that it's possible for > clients > >> to > >> > discover the new ports? Or is that a second phase? I was imagining it > >> > worked by basically allowing the brokers to advertise multiple ports, > one > >> > per security type, and then in the client you configure a protocol > which > >> > will implicitly choose the port from the options returned in metadata > to > >> > you... > >> > > >> > Likewise in the ConsumerMetadataResponse we are currently giving back > >> full > >> > broker information. I think we would have two options here: either > change > >> > the broker information included in that response to match the > >> > metadataresponse or else remove the broker information entirely and > just > >> > return the node id (since in order to use that request you would > already > >> > have to have the cluster metadata). The second option may be cleaner > >> since > >> > it means we won't have to continue evolving those two in lockstep... > >> > > >> > -Jay > >> > > >> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Gwen Shapira <gshap...@cloudera.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Good point :) > >> >> > >> >> I added the specifics of the new UpdateMetadataRequest, which is the > >> >> only protocol bump in this change. > >> >> > >> >> Highlighted the broker and producer/consumer configuration changes, > >> >> added some example values and added the new zookeeper json. > >> >> > >> >> Hope this makes things clearer. > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> > Hey Gwen, > >> >> > > >> >> > Could we get the actual changes in that KIP? I.e. changes to > metadata > >> >> > request, changes to UpdateMetadataRequest, new configs and what > will > >> >> their > >> >> > valid values be, etc. This kind of says that those things will > change > >> but > >> >> > doesn't say what they will change to... > >> >> > > >> >> > -Jay > >> >> > > >> >> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Gwen Shapira < > gshap...@cloudera.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> I created a KIP for the multi-port broker change. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-2+-+Refactor+brokers+to+allow+listening+on+multiple+ports+and+IPs > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I'm not re-opening the discussion, since it was agreed on over a > >> month > >> >> >> ago and implementation is close to complete (I hope!). Lets > consider > >> >> >> this voted and accepted? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Gwen > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > Great! Sounds like everyone is on the same page > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > - I created a template page to make things easier. If you do > >> >> >> Tools->Copy > >> >> >> > on this page you can just fill in the italic portions with > your > >> >> >> details. > >> >> >> > - I retrofitted KIP-1 to match this formatting > >> >> >> > - I added the metadata section people asked for (a link to > the > >> >> >> > discussion, the JIRA, and the current status). Let's make > sure > >> we > >> >> >> remember > >> >> >> > to update the current status as things are figured out. > >> >> >> > - Let's keep the discussion on the mailing list rather than > on > >> the > >> >> >> wiki > >> >> >> > pages. It makes sense to do one or the other so all the > comments > >> >> are > >> >> >> in one > >> >> >> > place and I think prior experience is that the wiki comments > are > >> >> the > >> >> >> worse > >> >> >> > way. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I think it would be great do KIPs for some of the in-flight > items > >> >> folks > >> >> >> > mentioned. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > -Jay > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Gwen Shapira < > >> gshap...@cloudera.com> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> +1 > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Will be happy to provide a KIP for the multiple-listeners > patch. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Gwen > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Joe Stein < > joe.st...@stealth.ly> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > +1 to everything we have been saying and where this (has > settled > >> >> >> to)/(is > >> >> >> >> > settling to). > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > I am sure other folks have some more feedback and think we > >> should > >> >> try > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> > keep this discussion going if need be. I am also a firm > >> believer of > >> >> >> form > >> >> >> >> > following function so kicking the tires some to flesh out the > >> >> details > >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> > this and have some organic growth with the process will be > >> healthy > >> >> and > >> >> >> >> > beneficial to the community. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > For my part, what I will do is open a few KIP based on some > of > >> the > >> >> >> work I > >> >> >> >> > have been involved with for 0.8.3. Off the top of my head > this > >> >> would > >> >> >> >> > include 1) changes to re-assignment of partitions 2) kafka > cli > >> 3) > >> >> >> global > >> >> >> >> > configs 4) security white list black list by ip 5) SSL 6) We > >> >> probably > >> >> >> >> will > >> >> >> >> > have lots of Security related KIPs and should treat them all > >> >> >> individually > >> >> >> >> > when the time is appropriate 7) Kafka on Mesos. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > If someone else wants to jump in to start getting some of the > >> >> security > >> >> >> >> KIP > >> >> >> >> > that we are going to have in 0.8.3 I think that would be > great > >> >> (e.g. > >> >> >> >> > Multiple Listeners for Kafka Brokers). There are also a few > >> other > >> >> >> >> tickets I > >> >> >> >> > can think of that are important to have in the code in 0.8.3 > >> that > >> >> >> should > >> >> >> >> > have KIP also that I haven't really been involved in. I will > >> take a > >> >> >> few > >> >> >> >> > minutes and go through JIRA (one I can think of like auto > >> assign id > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >> > already committed I think) and ask for a KIP if appropriate > or > >> if I > >> >> >> feel > >> >> >> >> > that I can write it up (both from a time and understanding > >> >> >> perspective) > >> >> >> >> do > >> >> >> >> > so. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > long story short, I encourage folks to start moving ahead > with > >> the > >> >> KIP > >> >> >> >> for > >> >> >> >> > 0.8.3 as how we operate. any objections? > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Guozhang Wang < > >> wangg...@gmail.com > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> +1 on the idea, and we could mutually link the KIP wiki page > >> with > >> >> the > >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> created JIRA ticket (i.e. include the JIRA number on the > page > >> and > >> >> the > >> >> >> >> KIP > >> >> >> >> >> url on the ticket description). > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Regarding the KIP process, probably we do not need two phase > >> >> >> >> communication > >> >> >> >> >> of a [DISCUSS] followed by [VOTE], as Jay said the voting > >> should > >> >> be > >> >> >> >> clear > >> >> >> >> >> while people discuss about that. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> About who should trigger the process, I think the only > involved > >> >> >> people > >> >> >> >> >> would be 1) when the patch is submitted / or even the > ticket is > >> >> >> created, > >> >> >> >> >> the assignee could choose to start the KIP process if she > >> thought > >> >> it > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >> >> necessary; 2) the reviewer of the patch can also suggest > >> starting > >> >> KIP > >> >> >> >> >> discussions. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Gwen Shapira < > >> >> >> gshap...@cloudera.com> > >> >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > +1 to Ewen's suggestions: Deprecation, status and version. > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > Perhaps add the JIRA where the KIP was implemented to the > >> >> metadata. > >> >> >> >> >> > This will help tie things together. > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava > >> >> >> >> >> > <e...@confluent.io> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > I think adding a section about deprecation would be > >> helpful. A > >> >> >> good > >> >> >> >> >> > > fraction of the time I would expect the goal of a KIP > is to > >> >> fix > >> >> >> or > >> >> >> >> >> > replace > >> >> >> >> >> > > older functionality that needs continued support for > >> >> >> compatibility, > >> >> >> >> but > >> >> >> >> >> > > should eventually be phased out. This helps Kafka devs > >> >> understand > >> >> >> >> how > >> >> >> >> >> > long > >> >> >> >> >> > > they'll end up supporting multiple versions of features > and > >> >> helps > >> >> >> >> users > >> >> >> >> >> > > understand when they're going to have to make updates to > >> their > >> >> >> >> >> > applications. > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > Less important but useful -- having a bit of standard > >> metadata > >> >> >> like > >> >> >> >> >> PEPs > >> >> >> >> >> > > do. Two I think are important are status (if someone > lands > >> on > >> >> the > >> >> >> >> KIP > >> >> >> >> >> > page, > >> >> >> >> >> > > can they tell whether this KIP was ever completed?) > and/or > >> the > >> >> >> >> version > >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> > > KIP was first released in. > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Joel Koshy < > >> >> jjkosh...@gmail.com > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> I'm definitely +1 on the KIP concept. As Joe > mentioned, we > >> >> are > >> >> >> >> already > >> >> >> >> >> > >> doing this in one form or the other. However, IMO it is > >> >> fairly > >> >> >> ad > >> >> >> >> hoc > >> >> >> >> >> > >> - i.e., a combination of DISCUSS threads, jira > comments, > >> RB > >> >> and > >> >> >> >> code > >> >> >> >> >> > >> comments, wikis and html documentation. In the past I > have > >> >> had > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> dig > >> >> >> >> >> > >> into a bunch of these to try and figure out why > something > >> was > >> >> >> >> >> > >> implemented a certain way. I think KIPs can help a lot > >> here > >> >> >> first > >> >> >> >> by > >> >> >> >> >> > >> providing guidelines on what to think about > >> (compatibility, > >> >> new > >> >> >> >> APIs, > >> >> >> >> >> > >> etc.) when working through a major feature; and second > by > >> >> >> becoming > >> >> >> >> a > >> >> >> >> >> > >> crisp source of truth documentation for new releases. > >> E.g., > >> >> for > >> >> >> >> >> > >> feature X: see relevant KIPs: a, b, c, etc. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 08:11:20PM -0800, Jay Kreps > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > Hey Joe, > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > Yeah I guess the question is what is the definition > of > >> >> major? > >> >> >> I > >> >> >> >> >> agree > >> >> >> >> >> > we > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > definitely don't want to generate a bunch of > paperwork. > >> We > >> >> >> have > >> >> >> >> >> enough > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > problems just getting all the contributions reviewed > and > >> >> >> checked > >> >> >> >> in > >> >> >> >> >> > in a > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > timely fashion... > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > So obviously bug fixes would not apply here. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > I think it is also pretty clear that big features > should > >> >> get > >> >> >> >> >> reviewed > >> >> >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > discussed. To pick on myself, for example, the log > >> >> compaction > >> >> >> >> work > >> >> >> >> >> was > >> >> >> >> >> > >> done > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > without enough public discussion about how it worked > and > >> >> why > >> >> >> >> >> (imho). I > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > hope/claim that enough rigour in thinking about > >> use-cases > >> >> and > >> >> >> >> >> > operations > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > and so on was done that it turned out well, but the > >> >> discussion > >> >> >> >> was > >> >> >> >> >> > just > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > between a few people with no real public output. This > >> kind > >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> feature > >> >> >> >> >> > is > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > clearly a big change and something we should discuss. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > If we limit ourselves to just the public contracts > the > >> KIP > >> >> >> >> >> introduces > >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > discussion would just be on the new configs and > >> monitoring > >> >> >> >> without > >> >> >> >> >> > >> really a > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > discussion of the design and how it works which is > >> >> obviously > >> >> >> >> closely > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > related. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > I don't think this should be more work because in > >> practice > >> >> we > >> >> >> are > >> >> >> >> >> > making > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > wiki pages for any big thing anyway. So this would > just > >> be > >> >> a > >> >> >> >> >> > consistent > >> >> >> >> >> > >> way > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > of numbering and structuring these pages. This would > >> also > >> >> >> give a > >> >> >> >> >> clear > >> >> >> >> >> > >> call > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > to action: "hey kafka people, come read my wiki and > >> think > >> >> this > >> >> >> >> >> > through". > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > I actually thinking the voting aspect is less > >> important. I > >> >> >> think > >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > generally clear when there is agreement on something > and > >> >> not. > >> >> >> So > >> >> >> >> >> from > >> >> >> >> >> > my > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > point of view we could actually just eliminate that > >> part if > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >> >> > too > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > formal, it just seemed like a good way to formally > adopt > >> >> >> >> something. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > To address some of your comments from the wiki: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > 1. This doesn't inhibit someone coming along and > putting > >> >> up a > >> >> >> >> patch. > >> >> >> >> >> > It > >> >> >> >> >> > >> is > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > just that when they do if it is a big thing > introducing > >> new > >> >> >> >> >> > functionality > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > we would ask for a little discussion on the basic > >> >> >> >> feature/contracts > >> >> >> >> >> > prior > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > to code review. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > 2. We definitely definitely don't want people > >> generating a > >> >> >> lot of > >> >> >> >> >> > these > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > things every time they have an idea that they aren't > >> going > >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> > implement. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> So > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > this is only applicable to things you absolutely will > >> >> check in > >> >> >> >> code > >> >> >> >> >> > for. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> We > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > also don't want to be making proposals before things > are > >> >> >> thought > >> >> >> >> >> > through, > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > which often requires writing the code. So I think the > >> right > >> >> >> time > >> >> >> >> >> for a > >> >> >> >> >> > >> KIP > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > is when you are far enough along that you know the > >> issues > >> >> and > >> >> >> >> >> > tradeoffs > >> >> >> >> >> > >> but > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > not so far along that you are going to be totally > >> opposed > >> >> to > >> >> >> any > >> >> >> >> >> > change. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > Sometimes that is prior to writing any code and > >> sometimes > >> >> not > >> >> >> >> until > >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> > >> are > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > practically done. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > The key problem I see this fixing is that there is > >> enough > >> >> new > >> >> >> >> >> > development > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > happening that it is pretty hard for everyone to > review > >> >> every > >> >> >> >> line > >> >> >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> >> > >> every > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > iteration of every patch. But all of us should be > fully > >> >> aware > >> >> >> of > >> >> >> >> new > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > features, the ramifications, the new public > interfaces, > >> >> etc. > >> >> >> If > >> >> >> >> we > >> >> >> >> >> > aren't > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > aware of that we can't really build a holistic system > >> that > >> >> is > >> >> >> >> >> > beautiful > >> >> >> >> >> > >> and > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > consistent across. So the idea is that if you fully > >> review > >> >> the > >> >> >> >> KIPs > >> >> >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> >> >> > >> can > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > be sure that even if you don't know every new line of > >> code, > >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> know > >> >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > major changes coming in. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > -Jay > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Joe Stein < > >> >> >> >> joe.st...@stealth.ly> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > Thanks Jay for kicking this off! I think the > >> confluence > >> >> page > >> >> >> >> you > >> >> >> >> >> > wrote > >> >> >> >> >> > >> up > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > is a great start. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > The KIP makes sense to me (at a minimum) if there > is > >> >> going > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> be > >> >> >> >> >> any > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > "breaking change". This way Kafka can continue to > grow > >> >> and > >> >> >> >> blossom > >> >> >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> >> >> > >> we > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > have a process in place if we are going to release > a > >> >> thorn > >> >> >> ... > >> >> >> >> and > >> >> >> >> >> > >> when we > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > do it is *CLEAR* about what and why that is. We can > >> >> easily > >> >> >> >> >> document > >> >> >> >> >> > >> which > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > KIPs where involved with this release (which I > think > >> >> should > >> >> >> get > >> >> >> >> >> > >> committed > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > afterwards somewhere so no chance of edit after > >> release). > >> >> >> This > >> >> >> >> >> > >> approach I > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > had been thinking about also allows changes to > occur > >> as > >> >> >> they do > >> >> >> >> >> now > >> >> >> >> >> > as > >> >> >> >> >> > >> long > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > as they are backwards compatible. Hopefully we > never > >> >> need a > >> >> >> >> KIP > >> >> >> >> >> but > >> >> >> >> >> > >> when > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > we do the PMC can vote on it and folks can read the > >> >> release > >> >> >> >> notes > >> >> >> >> >> > with > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > *CLEAR* understanding what is going to break their > >> >> existing > >> >> >> >> >> > setup... at > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > least that is how I have been thinking about it. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > Let me know what you think about this base minimum > >> >> >> approach... > >> >> >> >> I > >> >> >> >> >> > hadn't > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > really thought of the KIP for *ANY* "major change" > >> and I > >> >> >> have > >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> >> > think > >> >> >> >> >> > >> more > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > about that. I have some other comments for minor > >> items in > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> > >> confluence > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > page I will make once I think more about how I feel > >> >> having a > >> >> >> >> KIP > >> >> >> >> >> for > >> >> >> >> >> > >> more > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > than what I was thinking about already. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > I do think we should have "major changes" go > through > >> >> >> >> confluence, > >> >> >> >> >> > >> mailing > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > list discuss and JIRA but kind of feel we have been > >> doing > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> >> > already > >> >> >> >> >> > >> ... > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > if there are cases where that isn't the case we > should > >> >> >> >> highlight > >> >> >> >> >> and > >> >> >> >> >> > >> learn > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > from them and formalize that more if need be. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > /******************************************* > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > Joe Stein > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > Founder, Principal Consultant > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > Big Data Open Source Security LLC > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > http://www.stealth.ly > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > Twitter: @allthingshadoop < > >> >> >> >> >> http://www.twitter.com/allthingshadoop> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > ********************************************/ > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Jay Kreps < > >> >> >> >> jay.kr...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > The idea of KIPs came up in a previous discussion > >> but > >> >> >> there > >> >> >> >> was > >> >> >> >> >> no > >> >> >> >> >> > >> real > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > crisp definition of what they were. Here is an > >> attempt > >> >> at > >> >> >> >> >> > defining a > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > process: > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > The trick here is to have something light-weight > >> enough > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> it > >> >> >> >> >> > >> isn't a > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > hassle for small changes, but enough so that > changes > >> >> get > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> > >> eyeballs of > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > the committers and heavy users. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > Thoughts? > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > -Jay > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > >> >> >> >> >> > > Thanks, > >> >> >> >> >> > > Ewen > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> >> >> -- Guozhang > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >
