I like the round-up, looks good, thanks Joel. I should be able to get KIP-5 and KIP-6 to have more detail in the coming days.
~ Joestein On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm looking through a couple of the KIP threads today and had the same > issue; and thought it would be useful to do a status round-up of KIPs. > We could incorporate status in the title itself (so we can quickly see > it in the child-page list) but I just added a table to the top-level > wiki. Hopefully that captures the current state accurately so I know > which threads to follow-up on. > > Thanks, > > Joel > > On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 12:47:46PM -0800, Jay Kreps wrote: > > A problem I am having is actually understanding which KIPs are intended > to > > be complete proposals and which are works in progress. Joe you seem to > have > > a bunch of these. Can you move them elsewhere until they are really fully > > done and ready for review and discussion? > > > > -Jay > > > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I think we are focused on making committing new changes easier, but > what > > > we have seen is actually that isn't the bulk of the work (especially > with > > > this kind of "public interface" change where it generally has a big > user > > > impact). I think we actually really need the core committers and any > other > > > interested parties to stop and fully read each KIP and think about it. > If > > > we don't have time to do that we usually just end up spending a lot > more > > > time after the fact trying to rework things latter when it is a lot > harder. > > > So I really think we should have every active committer read, comment, > and > > > vote on each KIP. I think this may require a little bit of work to > > > co-ordinate/bug people but will end up being worth it because each > person > > > on the project will have a holistic picture of what is going on. > > > > > > -Jay > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> Just wanted to add a few more comments on this: KIPs were suggested as > > >> a process to help reach early consensus on a major change or not so > > >> major (but tricky or backward incompatible) change in order to reduce > > >> the likelihood of multiple iterations and complete rewrites during > > >> code reviews (which is time-intensive for both the contributor and > > >> reviewers); as well as to reduce the likelihood of surprises (say, if > > >> a patch inadvertently changes a public API). So KIPs are intended to > > >> speed up development since a clear path is charted out and there is > > >> prior consensus on whether a feature and its design/implementation > > >> make sense or not. > > >> > > >> Obviously this breaks down if KIPs are not being actively discussed - > > >> again I think we can do much better here. I think we ended up with a > > >> backlog because as soon as the KIP wiki was started, a number of > > >> pre-existing jiras and discussions were moved there - all within a few > > >> days. Now that there are quite a few outstanding KIPs I think we just > > >> need to methodically work through those - preferably a couple at a > > >> time. I looked through the list and I think we should be able to > > >> resolve all of them relatively quickly if everyone is on board with > > >> this. > > >> > > >> > > Its probably more helpful for contributors if its "lazy" as in "no > > >> > > strong objections" . > > >> > > >> Gwen also suggested this and this also sounds ok to me as I wrote > > >> earlier - what do others think? This is important especially if > > >> majority in the community think if this less restrictive policy would > > >> spur and not hinder development - I'm not sure that it does. I > > >> completely agree that KIPs fail to a large degree as far as the > > >> original motivation goes if they require a lazy majority but the > > >> DISCUSS threads are stalled. IOW regardless of that discussion, I > > >> think we should rejuvenate some of those threads especially now that > > >> 0.8.2 is out of the way. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Joel > > >> > > >> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 08:56:13PM -0800, Joel Koshy wrote: > > >> > I'm just thinking aloud - I don't know what a good number would be, > and > > >> it > > >> > is just one possibility to streamline how KIPs are processed. It > largely > > >> > depends on how complex the proposals are. What would be concerning > is if > > >> > there are 10 different threads all dealing with large KIPs and no > one > > >> has > > >> > the time to give due diligence to each one and all those threads > grind > > >> to a > > >> > halt due to confusion, incomplete context and misunderstandings. > > >> > > > >> > On Thursday, February 5, 2015, Harsha <ka...@harsha.io> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Joel, > > >> > > Having only 2 or 3 KIPS under active discussion is > concerning. > > >> > > This will slow down development process as well. > > >> > > Having a turn-around time for a KIP is a good idea but what will > > >> happen > > >> > > if it didn't received required votes within that time frame. > > >> > > Its probably more helpful for contributors if its "lazy" as in "no > > >> > > strong objections" . > > >> > > Just to make sure this is only for KIPs not for regular bug fixes > > >> right? > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > Harsha > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015, at 05:59 PM, Jiangjie Qin wrote: > > >> > > > Iąm having an impression that KIP is mostly for new features but > > >> not for > > >> > > > bug fixes. But I agree with Joel that it might make sense to > have > > >> some > > >> > > > big > > >> > > > patches, even if they are bug fixes, to follow the KIP like > process > > >> which > > >> > > > is more strict. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On 2/5/15, 4:57 PM, "Gwen Shapira" <gshap...@cloudera.com > > >> <javascript:;>> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> Yes there are KIPs that are currently blocked on > feedback/votes, > > >> but I > > >> > > > >> don't think it is an issue of not caring to comment vs > having so > > >> many > > >> > > > >> KIPs and other code reviews in flight that people are just > > >> swamped. > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >This is exactly my concern. > > >> > > > >Even now important patches and features have very long > development > > >> and > > >> > > > >review cycles due to Kafka's small and very busy committer > > >> community. I > > >> > > > >feel that this change takes things in the wrong direction > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> Joel > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 04:19:54PM -0800, Gwen Shapira wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Isn't requiring 3 binding votes a bit overly strict here? > We > > >> are > > >> > > > >>talking > > >> > > > >> > about patches which in can be fixed, reverted, etc. Not > > >> releases, > > >> > > > >>which > > >> > > > >> > have legal implications. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Why not go with usual definition: "lazy" = "No strong > > >> objections for > > >> > > > >>few > > >> > > > >> > days"? > > >> > > > >> > This means contributors will not be blocked on issues > where no > > >> one > > >> > > > >>cares > > >> > > > >> to > > >> > > > >> > comment (and we had few of those). > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Gwen > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Joel Koshy < > > >> jjkosh...@gmail.com > > >> > > <javascript:;>> > > >> > > > >>wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Sorry about this - I actually meant to suggest lazy > consensus > > >> > > (which > > >> > > > >> > > is a stronger requirement): "3 binding +1 votes and no > > >> binding > > >> > > > >> > > vetoes." > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > I have updated the wiki to lazy consensus - but can > change > > >> it back > > >> > > > >>if > > >> > > > >> > > there is a reasonable objection. > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 06:17:44PM -0500, Joe Stein > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > +1 > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Neha Narkhede < > > >> > > n...@confluent.io <javascript:;>> > > >> > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > Sounds good. > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Jay Kreps < > > >> > > jay.kr...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> > > >> > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > None on my part. > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > -Jay > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Joel Koshy > > >> > > > >><jjkosh...@gmail.com <javascript:;> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > One amendment I would like to bring up for > > >> consideration > > >> > > wrt > > >> > > > >> the > > >> > > > >> > > KIP > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > process (before we formally include it in our > > >> by-laws) is > > >> > > to > > >> > > > >> not > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > restrict the votes to be a lazy majority of the > PMC, > > >> and > > >> > > to > > >> > > > >> instead > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > make it a lazy majority of committers. > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > Our current requirement for code changes per our > > >> by-laws > > >> > > > >>are +1 > > >> > > > >> > > from a > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > committer (who is not the contributor) followed > by > > >> lazy > > >> > > > >> approval. I > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > think a lazy majority vote for more significant > code > > >> > > changes > > >> > > > >> > > (i.e., a > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > KIP) should be sufficient. > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > Any objection to this? > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:31:08AM -0800, Jay > Kreps > > >> 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 <javascript:;> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > 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 <javascript:;>> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > 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 <javascript:;> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > 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 <javascript:;>> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 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 <javascript:;>> > 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 <javascript:;>> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 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 <javascript:;>> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> 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 <javascript:;>> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> 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+Propo > > >> > > > >>sals > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > 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 > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > -- > > >> > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > >> > > > > Neha > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > > >> > > Joel > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > >> > > >> > > > > >
