Looks like the KIP has passed. The finally tally is +5 among committers and +9 overall.
Thanks to Pierre-Yves Ritschard for all of the hard work and persistence with this! -Jason On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:01 PM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava <e...@confluent.io> wrote: > +1. > > Normally I'd be more of a stickler for compatibility, but this is new, I > think it's worth emphasizing that unstable actually means unstable & might > require recompile (and maybe even adapting code when we think the change > warrants it), and I think the impact is relatively low since those adopting > the new consumer know that it's very new. Agreed with Guozhang that better > documenting the annotations will help (and personally apologize for that > since we hastily introduced the annotations to give ourselves wiggle room > on Connect). > > -Ewen > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > I'd like to open the vote for KIP-45. We've discussed several > > alternatives > > > on the mailing list and in the KIP call, but this vote is only on the > > > documented KIP: > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61337336. > > > This > > > change will not be compatible with 0.9, but it will provide a cleaner > API > > > long term for users to work with. This is really the last chance to > make > > an > > > incompatible change like this with 0.10 shortly on the way, but > > compatible > > > options (such as method overloading) could be brought up again in the > > > future if we find it's needed. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Ewen >
