> On Jan 25, 2017, at 9:26 PM, Joel Koshy <jjkosh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > already voted, but one thing worth considering (since this KIP speaks of > *enforcement*) is desired behavior if the topic already exists and the > config != existing RF. >
Yeah, I'm curious about this too. -James > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: >> >>> An important question is if this needs to wait for a major release or >> not. >>> >>> Ismael >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 from me too. >>>> >>>> Ismael >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:07 AM, Ewen Cheslack-Postava < >>> e...@confluent.io >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> Since this is an unusual one, I think it's worth pointing out that the >>> KIP >>>>> notes it is really a bug fix, but since it has compatibility >>> implications >>>>> the KIP was worth it. It was a sort of intentional bug, but confusing >>> and >>>>> dangerous. >>>>> >>>>> Seems important to fix this ASAP since people are hitting this in >>> practice >>>>> and would have to go out of their way to set up monitoring to catch >> the >>>>> issue. >>>>> >>>>> -Ewen >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 from me. The current behavior seems both surprising and >> dangerous. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Jason >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Onur Karaman < >>>>>> onurkaraman.apa...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey everyone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I made a bug-fix KIP-115 to enforce offsets.topic.replication. >>> factor: >>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- >>>>>>> 115%3A+Enforce+offsets.topic.replication.factor >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Comments are welcome. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Onur >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
