Thanks to everyone who voted and provided feedback. The vote has passed
with 5 binding votes (Sriram, Jun, Neha, Becket, Joel) and 4 non-binding
votes (Rajini, Colin, Tom, Roger).
I have updated the relevant wiki pages.
Ismael
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Joel Koshy wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri,
+1
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Since a few people (including myself) felt that listener name was clearer
> than protocol label, I updated the KIP to use that (as mentioned in the
> discuss thread). Given that this is a minor change, I don't think we need
> to
Hi all,
Since a few people (including myself) felt that listener name was clearer
than protocol label, I updated the KIP to use that (as mentioned in the
discuss thread). Given that this is a minor change, I don't think we need
to restart the vote. If anyone objects to this change, please let me k
+1
Thanks for the proposal.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Roger Hoover
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Tom Crayford
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Colin McCabe wrote:
> >
> > > Looks good. +1 (non-binding).
> > >
> >
+1 (non-binding)
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Tom Crayford wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Colin McCabe wrote:
>
> > Looks good. +1 (non-binding).
> >
> > What do you think about changing "protocol label" to "listener key"?
> >
> > best,
> > Colin
> >
> >
> >
+1 (non-binding)
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Colin McCabe wrote:
> Looks good. +1 (non-binding).
>
> What do you think about changing "protocol label" to "listener key"?
>
> best,
> Colin
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017, at 09:23, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:21 AM
Looks good. +1 (non-binding).
What do you think about changing "protocol label" to "listener key"?
best,
Colin
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017, at 09:23, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:21 AM Jun Rao wrote:
>
> > Hi, Ismael,
> >
> > Thanks for the KIP. +1
> >
> > Jun
> >
> > On F
+1
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:21 AM Jun Rao wrote:
> Hi, Ismael,
>
> Thanks for the KIP. +1
>
> Jun
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Ismael Juma wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As the discussion seems to have settled down, I would like to initiate
> the
> > voting process for KIP-103: Separation
Hi, Ismael,
Thanks for the KIP. +1
Jun
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As the discussion seems to have settled down, I would like to initiate the
> voting process for KIP-103: Separation of Internal and External traffic:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/
+1
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Rajini Sivaram
wrote:
> Ismael,
>
> Thank you for the KIP. It is a very useful feature.
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Regards,
>
> Rajini
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Ismael Juma wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As the discussion seems to have settled down, I w
Ismael,
Thank you for the KIP. It is a very useful feature.
+1 (non-binding)
Regards,
Rajini
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As the discussion seems to have settled down, I would like to initiate the
> voting process for KIP-103: Separation of Internal and E
Hi all,
As the discussion seems to have settled down, I would like to initiate the
voting process for KIP-103: Separation of Internal and External traffic:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-103%3A+Separation+of+Internal+and+External+traffic
The vote will run for a minimum of
12 matches
Mail list logo
