Thanks for reminding me about the "Binding" vote Bill. I remember some
people with non-binding vote, so jumped the gun a bit too early.
We will wait for 2 more as you stated.

Regards,

On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 at 16:07, Bill Bejeck <bbej...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 from me.
>
> As for closing the vote, it needs to be open for a minimum of 72 and
> requires three binding +1 votes.  Additionally, there needs more +1 binding
> votes than -1 votes.  The description for the lazy majority vote process is
> described here
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Bylaws#Bylaws-Approvals.
>
> I haven't been tracking the vote results, but from what I can see in the
> voting thread, this KIP still requires two more +1 binding votes.
>
> HTH,
> BIll
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:58 AM M. Manna <manme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Since this has been open for a while, I am assuming that it's good to go?
> >
> > if so, I will update the KIP page - and start coding this. I would prefer
> > re-using existing tests written for DefaultPartitioner, so that we don't
> > need to write new tests.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 19:34, Matthias J. Sax <matth...@confluent.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > @Abhimanyu: can you please update the table in
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals
> > > and add a link to the KIP. Thanks.
> > >
> > > -Matthias
> > >
> > > On 9/4/18 9:56 PM, Abhimanyu Nagrath wrote:
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 2:39 AM Magesh Nandakumar <
> mage...@confluent.io
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> +1 ( non-binding)
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 3:39 AM M. Manna <manme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hello,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I have made necessary changes as per the original discussion
> thread,
> > > and
> > > >>> would like to put it for votes.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thank you very much for your suggestion and guidance so far.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Regards,
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to