Hi, The KIP has been updated. As it has change should I restart the vote? In any case I'm still missing one binding vote if anyone wants to help. Thanks!
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:13 PM, charly molter <charly.mol...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sounds good I'll update the KIP > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Charly, >> >> Personally I prefer emitting both and deprecate old one. This does not >> block on the 2.0 release and we don't need to worry about more users >> picking up the old metric in 1.1 release. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >> >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:08 AM, charly molter <charly.mol...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Thanks Jun and Becket! >> > >> > I think your point about 1.0 vs 2.0 makes sense I can update the KIP to >> > reflect this. >> > >> > What's the process for 2.0 contributions as I can see that trunk is 1.1 >> and >> > no 2.x branch? >> > >> > Here's what I can do: >> > - Not write the code change until trunk moves to 2.0. >> > - Write the change but leave the PR open until we start working on 2.0. >> > - Stall this KIP until 2.0 development starts (IIRC it's pretty soon). >> > - Do it in a backward compatible way (publish both sets of metrics) and >> > open a Jira tagged on 2.0 to remove the old metrics. >> > >> > Let me know what's the right way to go. >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > > Thanks for the KIP, Charly. >> > > >> > > +1. The proposal looks good to me. I agree with Jun that it is better >> to >> > > make the metrics consistent with other metrics. That being said, >> arguably >> > > this is a backwards incompatible change. Since we are at 1.0, >> backwards >> > > incompatible changes are supposed to be in 2.0. Not sure if that is >> the >> > > plan or not. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > >> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin >> > > >> > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 4:20 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi, Jiangjie, >> > > > >> > > > Since you proposed the original KIP-92, do you want to see if this >> KIP >> > > > makes sense? >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > >> > > > Jun >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:48 AM, charly molter < >> > charly.mol...@gmail.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi, >> > > > > >> > > > > I would like to start the voting thread for KIP-225. >> > > > > This KIP proposes to correct some lag metrics emitted by the >> > consumer. >> > > > > >> > > > > The KIP wiki is here: >> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/uaBzB >> > > > > >> > > > > The discussion thread is here: >> > > > > http://search-hadoop.com/m/Kafka/uyzND1F33uL19AYx/threaded >> > > > > >> > > > > Also could someone assign me to this Jira: KAFKA-5890 >> > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-5890> >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Charly Molter >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Charly Molter >> > >> > > > > -- > Charly Molter > -- Charly Molter
