Hi, Kevin,
Thanks for the explanation. The KIP looks good to me now.
Jun
On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 9:07 AM Kevin Wu wrote:
> Hi Jun,
>
> > So, the new controller
> > should be able to send a version of the AddRaftVoter request that the
> > leader supports, right?
>
> The new controller can send a
Hi Jun,
> So, the new controller
> should be able to send a version of the AddRaftVoter request that the
> leader supports, right?
The new controller can send a supported version for the RPC, but we do not
want that to happen. This is because a controller sending AddRaftVoter with
version 0 can c
Hi, Kevin,
Thanks for the KIP. Overall, it looks reasonable to me.
Regarding "The follower should not send the AddRaftVoter request if the
leader doesn't support the version, because we do not want to cause the
unavailability scenario described above. Therefore, the new field should
not be ignore
Thanks for the clarifications.
2. I would say it's also important that operators understand how to use the
RPCs. From my perspective this new RPC field was introduced to address an
'internal-facing' issue in the sense that you wouldn't expect the average
operator to ever set this field to anything
Hi Alyssa,
Thanks for the feedback.
1. Yeah, I guess I do not state explicitly why this issue does not impact
controllers that are manually added via the AdminClient. I'll add a section
to clarify the difference in the situations.
2. I touched on this a bit in the Proposed Changes section, but I a
Hey Kevin,
Thanks for creating this KIP!
1. It wasn't very clear to me why there's a difference in behavior between
auto-joining controllers and controllers which are being manually added by
an operator - could your KIP explain the difference a bit more? e.g. does
the following issue not apply fo
Hi Jose,
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with the solution of not ignoring the new
field, and I see how the current documentation is not descriptive in terms
of what the flag is actually doing within the protocol. I will update the
KIP to change these things.
Best,
Kevin
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at
Thanks for the KIP Kevin. The motivation is clear to me and beneficial
for implementing the auto-join feature designed in KIP-853.
In the "Compatibility ..." section you state the following:
"To make this change backwards compatible, we can make this field
ignorable. This ensures compatibility bet
Hello all,
I wrote a KIP to add a new boolean field to the AddRaftVoterRequest RPC.
Here is the link:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-1186%3A+Update+AddRaftVoterRequest+RPC+to+support+auto-join
Thanks,
Kevin Wu
