Hi Ted and Ismael, Thanks for the comments.
Ted, I've fixed the KIP for your comments. Ismael, see responses inline: On 8 September 2017 at 02:00, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > Thanks Tom. Thanks for the KIP. A few comments: > > 1. Does the `PartitionCount` class still make sense given that the method > can only increase the number of partitions now? > Yes, it still makes sense because its optional to supply assignments of the new partitions to brokers. I'm not totally convinced it's the best name though. > 2,. In `NewTopic`, we have `numPartitions`. Should we keep using that > variant and call the method `increaseNumPartitions`? > I don't mind, renaming it. It would make the `PartitionCount` name even less convincing though, so perhaps the right name for that would be `NumPartitionIncrease`? > 3. Since this has been discussed at length as part of the reassign > partitions KIP, I suggest starting the vote tomorrow if there are no > objections from others. > I'll start the vote today unless anyone raises points that I can't address. Thanks, Tom > > Thanks, > Ismael > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Tom Bentley <t.j.bent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > As suggested by Ismael, I've factored the increasePartitionCounts() API > out > > of KIP-179 out into a separate KIP which hopefully can progress more > > quickly. > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-195% > > 3A+AdminClient.increasePartitions > > > > If you've looked at KIP-179 in the last few days there's no much new to > see > > here, but if not you should find KIP-195 a lighter read. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tom > > >
