I did https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/drafts
~ Joestein On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Jay Kreps <jay.kr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah no pressure. I think you added a holding area for incomplete KIPs, > right? I think that is a good idea. We definitely need a place to stash > these while they are getting built out... > > -Jay > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:10 PM, Joe Stein <joe.st...@stealth.ly> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
