I agree on consistency, too. However, I am not sure if we should introduce an explicit --execute option. Anybody familiar with Linux tools will expect a command to execute by default.
Thus, I would suggest to remove --execute for all tools that use this option atm. Btw: there is a related Jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-1299 Furthermore, this also affect arguments like --bootstrap-servers vs --broker-list and maybe others. IMHO, all tools should use the same names. Thus, it's a larger change... But totally worth doing it. -Matthias On 2/26/18 10:09 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > Hi Jorge, > > I agree on being consistent across our tools. > > Besides the kafka-consumer-groups and kafka-streams-application-reset, a > couple of other classes to consider adding the --execute options for the > next major release: > > 1. kafka-preferred-replica-elections > 2. kafka-reassign-partitions > 3. kafka-delete-records > 4. kafka-topics > 5. kafka-acls > 6. kafka-configs > 7. kafka-delegation-tokens > > > Guozhang > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:03 AM, Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya < > quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Thanks for the feedback. >> >> I have updated the "Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration Plan" section >> to document this to support the rollback. I probably should have handled >> this change, as small as it looks, as a new KIP to avoid this issue. >> >> I like Colin's idea about asking for confirmation, although I'm not sure if >> another tool has already this behavior and could create more confusion >> (e.g. why this command ask for confirmation and others don't). Maybe we >> will require a more broad looks at the CLI tools to agree on this? >> >> Jorge. >> >> El jue., 22 feb. 2018 a las 21:09, Guozhang Wang (<wangg...@gmail.com>) >> escribió: >> >>> Yup, agreed. >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Guozhang, >>>> >>>> To clarify my comment: any change with a backwards compatibility impact >>>> should be mentioned in the "Compatibility, Deprecation, and Migration >>> Plan" >>>> section (in addition to the deprecation period and only happening in a >>>> major release as you said). >>>> >>>> Ismael >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:10 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- Guozhang >>> >> > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
