Just to clarify, the KIP itself has mentioned about the change so the PR was not un-intentional:
" 3. Keep execution parameters uniform between both tools: It will execute by default, and have a `dry-run` parameter just show the results. This will involve change current `ConsumerGroupCommand` to change execution options. " We were agreed that the proposed change is better than the current status, since may people not using "--execute" on consumer reset tool were actually surprised that nothing gets executed. What we were concerning as a hind-sight is that instead of doing such change in a minor release like 1.1, we should consider only doing that in the next major release as it breaks compatibility. In the past when we are going to remove / replace certain option we would first add a going-to-be-deprecated warning in the previous releases until it was finally removed. So Jason's suggestion is to do the same: we are not reverting this change forever, but trying to delay it after 1.1. Guozhang On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > Perhaps, if the user doesn't pass the --execute flag, the tool should > print a prompt like "would you like to perform this reset?" and wait for a > Y / N (or yes or no) input from the command-line. Then, if the --execute > flag is passed, we skip this. That seems 99% compatible, and also > accomplishes the goal of making the tool less confusing. > > best, > Colin > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, at 10:23, Ismael Juma wrote: > > Yes, let's revert the incompatible changes. There was no mention of > > compatibility impact on the KIP and we should ensure that is the case for > > 1.1.0. > > > > Ismael > > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > > > I know it's a been a while since this vote passed, but I think we need > to > > > reconsider the incompatible changes to the consumer reset tool. > > > Specifically, we have removed the --execute option without deprecating > it > > > first, and we have changed the default behavior to execute rather than > do a > > > dry run. The latter in particular seems dangerous since users who were > > > previously using the default behavior to view offsets will now suddenly > > > find the offsets already committed. As far as I can tell, this change > was > > > done mostly for cosmetic reasons. Without a compelling reason, I think > we > > > should err on the side of maintaining compatibility. At a minimum, if > we > > > really want to break compatibility, we should wait for the next major > > > release. > > > > > > Note that I have submitted a patch to revert this change here: > > > https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4611. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya < > > > quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks to everyone for your feedback. > > > > > > > > KIP has been accepted and discussion is moved to PR. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jorge. > > > > > > > > El lun., 6 nov. 2017 a las 17:31, Rajini Sivaram (< > > > rajinisiva...@gmail.com > > > > >) > > > > escribió: > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > Thanks for the KIP, Jorge. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Damian Guy <damian....@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP - +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 at 18:39 Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Jorge for driving this KIP! +1 (binding). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Bill Bejeck < > bbej...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Matthias J. Sax < > > > > > > > matth...@confluent.io> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/11/17 3:04 PM, Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that there is no further concern with the > KIP-171. > > > > > > > > > > > At this point we would like to start the voting > process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The KIP can be found here: > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > > > > > > > > 171+-+Extend+Consumer+Group+Reset+Offset+for+Stream+ > > > > Application > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > -- Guozhang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- -- Guozhang
