Thank you, Gwen! =)
I think that puts us over the finish line. Unless I hear any objections in
the next 12(ish) hours I’ll move the KIP to accepted on the wiki.
On December 12, 2017 at 7:50:23 PM, Gwen Shapira (g...@confluent.io) wrote:
+1 (binding) - looks awesome.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10
+1 (binding) - looks awesome.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:42 AM Matt Farmer wrote:
> Current tally here is 2 binding +1s, 4 non-binding +1s.
>
> The remaining remarks on the PR seem to mostly be nits, so I feel like
> we’ve converged a bit. If a committer could take a look and either leave me
> s
Current tally here is 2 binding +1s, 4 non-binding +1s.
The remaining remarks on the PR seem to mostly be nits, so I feel like
we’ve converged a bit. If a committer could take a look and either leave me
some feedback on the discussion thread or give me a +1, I’d really
appreciate it. :)
Thanks!
+1
On 12/6/17 7:54 AM, Bill Bejeck wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Matt Farmer wrote:
>
>> Bumping this thread so it’s visible given that the conversation on KIP-210
>> has converged again.
>>
>> Current tally is 2 binding +1s, and 2 non-binding +1s.
>>
>> On November 8, 2017
+1
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Matt Farmer wrote:
> Bumping this thread so it’s visible given that the conversation on KIP-210
> has converged again.
>
> Current tally is 2 binding +1s, and 2 non-binding +1s.
>
> On November 8, 2017 at 12:26:32 PM, Damian Guy (damian@gmail.com)
> wrote:
Bumping this thread so it’s visible given that the conversation on KIP-210
has converged again.
Current tally is 2 binding +1s, and 2 non-binding +1s.
On November 8, 2017 at 12:26:32 PM, Damian Guy (damian@gmail.com) wrote:
+1 (binding)
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 at 16:50 Matthias J. Sax wrote:
>
+1 (binding)
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 at 16:50 Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> Yes. A KIP needs 3 binding "+1" to be accepted.
>
> You can still work on the PR and get it ready to get merged -- I am
> quite confident that this KIP will be accepted :)
>
>
> -Matthias
>
> On 11/4/17 3:56 PM, Matt Farmer wrote:
Yes. A KIP needs 3 binding "+1" to be accepted.
You can still work on the PR and get it ready to get merged -- I am
quite confident that this KIP will be accepted :)
-Matthias
On 11/4/17 3:56 PM, Matt Farmer wrote:
> Bump! I believe I need two more binding +1's to proceed?
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2
Bump! I believe I need two more binding +1's to proceed?
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:49 AM Ted Yu wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding) from me. Thanks!
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Guozhang Wang
> wrote:
> >
> > > The vote should stay
+1
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> +1 (binding) from me. Thanks!
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
>
> > The vote should stay open for at least 72 hours. The bylaws can be found
> > here https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Bylaws
> >
>
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks, Matt!
The vote should stay open for at least 72 hours. The bylaws can be found
here https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Bylaws
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 8:09 AM, Matt Farmer wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> It seems like discussion around KIP-210 has gone to a lull. I've got some
> candidate work un
+1 (binding) from me. Thanks!
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Guozhang Wang wrote:
> The vote should stay open for at least 72 hours. The bylaws can be found
> here https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Bylaws
>
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 8:09 AM, Matt Farmer wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
Hello all,
It seems like discussion around KIP-210 has gone to a lull. I've got some
candidate work underway for it already, so I'd like to go ahead and call it
to a vote.
For reference, the KIP can be found here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-210+-+Provide+for+custom+erro
14 matches
Mail list logo
