Hey Onur, Are you suggesting letting the consumers to hold back on sending SyncGroupRequest on the first rebalance? I am not sure how exactly that works. But it looks that having the group coordinator to control the rebalance progress would be clearer and probably safer than letting the group members to guess the state of a group. Can you elaborate a little bit on your idea?
Thanks, Jiangjie (Becket) Qin On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Onur Karaman <onurkaraman.apa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Damian. > > After reading the discussion thread again, it still doesn't seem like the > thread discussed the option I mentioned earlier. > > From what I had understood from the broker-side vs. client-side config > debate was that the client-side config from the discussion would cause a > wire format change, while the client-side config change that I had > suggested would not. > > I just want to make sure we don't accidentally skip past it due to a > potential misunderstanding. > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Mathieu Fenniak < > > mathieu.fenn...@replicon.com> wrote: > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > This will be very helpful for me, looking forward to it! :-) > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:46 AM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > I'd like to start the voting thread on KIP-134: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > > 134%3A+Delay+initial+consumer+group+rebalance > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Damian > > > > > > > > > >
