Status Update:
All tasks marked for 0.10.1.1 as been resolved, will start the release
process right away.
Guozhang
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> @Sean,
>
> There have been some discussions about KAFKA-4250, from Ismael. The main
> concern is on backward compatibility
@Sean,
There have been some discussions about KAFKA-4250, from Ismael. The main
concern is on backward compatibility between 0.10.1.0 and the coming
0.10.1.1.
Status Update:
We are having three tasks left for 0.10.1.1, all of which have a PR under
review and close to be merged. After those thre
Well I would like KAFKA-4250 (make ProducerRecord and ConsumerRecord
extensible) in the 0.10.1 branch if is not a big deal. They are just
dumb structs. But they are final so no extensibility is possible.
Sean
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Ignacio Solis wrote:
> I don't think anybody from Li
@Bernard Leach
That sounds good, we can consider adding a kafka_2.12-0.10.1.1-beta.tgz
into maven for Scala community to test it out.
Guozhang
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Bernard Leach
wrote:
> Hi Guozhang,
>
> My suggestion was to not add kafka_2.12-0.10.1.0.tgz to downloads.html but
>
Hi Guozhang,
My suggestion was to not add kafka_2.12-0.10.1.0.tgz to downloads.html but to
still run the build to generate the maven artefacts for 2.12 and still publish
those to maven central. That would allow projects with binary dependencies on
kafka to obtain the required jars but hide awa
@Ignacio Solis
The commit you mentioned was not intended for 0.10.1 but only for trunk
(and there is a related KIP for this API change), but mistakenly gets
leaked in and was already reverted.
@Bernard Leach
Could you elaborate on "instead simply publish the artifacts to maven
central"? Currentl
Sorry for my misunderstanding, I assumed the request to include the
keyword removal came from you.
And it is always good to know what versions LinkedIn are running, you
guys always serve as somewhat of a gold standard to the community :)
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Ignacio Solis wrote:
> I
I don't think anybody from LinkedIn asked for features on this release. We
just jumped in at the discussion of including a patch which was not a bug
fix and whether it mattered.
Having said that, the internal release we're working on came off the 0.10.1
branch with a few internal hotfix patches a
btw. is LinkedIn no longer running from trunk? I'm not used to
LinkedIn employees requesting specific patches to be included in a
bugfix release.
Any discussion on the content of any release is obviously welcome, I'm
just wondering if there was a change in policy.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 2:17 PM,
OK, so it seems like there are no changes that break compatibility in the
0.10.1 branch since we offer no compatibility guarantees for logging
output. That's good. :)
About the removal of final, it happened in trunk and it doesn't seem like
anyone is still asking for it to be included in the 0.10.
The commit you mentioned was corrupted and corrected via
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=kafka.git;a=commit;h=cc62b4f844ca16eee974e75b736af87b7532de0d
The code change got reverted.
-Matthias
On 11/29/16 1:35 PM, Ignacio Solis wrote:
> Sorry, that was a hasty reply. There are also vari
Sorry, that was a hasty reply. There are also various logging things that
change format. This could break parsers.
None of them are important, my only argument is that the final keyword
removal is not important either.
Nacho
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Ignacio Solis wrote:
> https://git
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=kafka.git;a=commit;h=10cfc1628df024f7596d3af5c168fa90f59035ca
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> Which changes break compatibility in the 0.10.1 branch? It would be good to
> fix before the release goes out.
>
> Ismael
>
> On 29 Nov 20
Which changes break compatibility in the 0.10.1 branch? It would be good to
fix before the release goes out.
Ismael
On 29 Nov 2016 9:09 pm, "Ignacio Solis" wrote:
> Some of the changes in the 0.10.1 branch already are not bug fixes. Some
> break compatibility.
>
> Having said that, at this leve
Some of the changes in the 0.10.1 branch already are not bug fixes. Some
break compatibility.
Having said that, at this level we should maintain a stable API and leave
any changes for real version bumps. This should be only a bugfix release.
Nacho
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Ismael Juma
I disagree, but let's discuss it another time and in a separate thread. :)
Ismael
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 4:30 PM, radai wrote:
> designing kafka code for stable extensibility is a worthy and noble cause.
> however, seeing as there are no such derivatives out in the wild yet i
> think investing
designing kafka code for stable extensibility is a worthy and noble cause.
however, seeing as there are no such derivatives out in the wild yet i
think investing the effort right now is a bit premature from kafka's pov.
I think its enough simply not to purposefully prevent such extensions.
On Tue,
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 11:08 PM, radai wrote:
> "compatibility guarantees that are expected by people who subclass these
> classes"
>
> sorry if this is not the best thread for this discussion, but I just wanted
> to pop in and say that since any subclassing of these will obviously not be
> done
stability.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to flag then we shouldn't be adding / merging in any Jira's
>> that
>>>> are not bugs.
>>>>
>>>> e.g. KAFKA-4438
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __
fix release for stability.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'd like to flag then we shouldn't be adding / merging in any Jira's
> that
> >> are not bugs.
> >>
> >> e.g. KAFKA-4438
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: isma...@gm
;
>> I'd like to flag then we shouldn't be adding / merging in any Jira's that
>> are not bugs.
>>
>> e.g. KAFKA-4438
>>
>>
>>
>> From: isma...@gmail.com on behalf of Ismael Juma <
>&
t;
>
> From: isma...@gmail.com on behalf of Ismael Juma <
> ism...@juma.me.uk>
> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 11:43 AM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 0.10.1.1 Plan
>
> Good, seems like we are in agreement
ay, November 25, 2016 11:43 AM
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 0.10.1.1 Plan
Good, seems like we are in agreement about sticking to bug fixes for
0.10.1.1.
Regarding the removal of final, I understand that it doesn't break
backwards binary compatibility (it does break forwar
less restrive would not cause any issue.
>
> Saying that agree this is a fix build not a feature build.
>
> Sent using OWA for iPhone
>
> From: Rajini Sivaram
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 12:17:13 PM
> To: dev@kafka.apache.or
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] 0.10.1.1 Plan
Hi Ismael,
OK, I do agree with you. At the moment, our code wraps these three classes
since they can't be extended. I recently noticed that two of the three are
now non-final in trunk. If all three were made non-final, we would like to
extend them,
According t
Hi Ismael,
OK, I do agree with you. At the moment, our code wraps these three classes
since they can't be extended. I recently noticed that two of the three are
now non-final in trunk. If all three were made non-final, we would like to
extend them,
According to the Java specification:
*Changing
Hi Rajini,
I think we should avoid making changes like that in patch releases as it
means that code that compiles with 0.10.1.1 may not compile with 0.10.1.0.
Since we now have frequent time based releases, I think it makes sense for
patch releases to only include bug fixes and test stability fixe
Can we add KAFKA-4440 and KAFKA-4250 to the the list? They make
ProducerRecord/ConsumerRecord/RecordMetadata non-final so that they can be
extended. The changes have minimal impact on the codebase, but will really
help when implementing other producers/consumers. It is not a bug-fix, but
if we are
Hi Guozhang,
I have added KAFKA-4438 to that list as that would enable publishing the scala
2.12 builds of 0.10.1.1. There are other tasks in order to actually publish a
2.12 but merging that change would enable that process. There’s a
corresponding PR on github that consists of a cherry-pick
Hi everyone,
We have resolved 15 JIRAs including a few critical bugs in the 0.10.1
branch since 0.10.1.0 was released so I'd like to propose to release
0.10.1.1 soon:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20KAFKA%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Fixed%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.10.
30 matches
Mail list logo
