+1 (binding). Re: the builder discussion. I don't feel strongly either way-- the builder sketched out in the KIP looks reasonable, but I can also understand Ismael's argument for keeping the KIP minimal.
best, Colin On Thu, May 9, 2019, at 08:09, Randall Hauch wrote: > I'm fine with simplifying the KIP by removing the Builder (which seems > ancillary), or keeping the KIP as-is. I'll wait to vote until Almog says > which way he'd like to proceed. > > On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 9:45 AM Ismael Juma <ism...@juma.me.uk> wrote: > > > Hi Almog, > > > > Adding a Builder seems unrelated to this change. Do we need it? Given the > > imminent KIP deadline, I'd keep it simple and just have the constructor > > with just the name parameter. > > > > Ismael > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:58 AM Mickael Maison <mickael.mai...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I was planning to write a KIP for the exact same feature! > > > +1 (non binding) > > > > > > Thanks for the KIP > > > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:24 PM Almog Gavra <al...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello Everyone! > > > > > > > > Kicking off the voting for > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-464%3A+Defaults+for+AdminClient%23createTopic > > > > > > > > > > > > You can see discussion thread here (please respond with suggestions on > > > that > > > > thread): > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c0adfd2457e5984be7471fe6ade8a94d52c647356c81c039445d6b34@%3Cdev.kafka.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Almog > > > > > >
