Xavier, I agree that we can close the vote with 4 binding and 3 non-binding
votes.
I will update, confluence, jira and the PR accordingly.
Thank you all
Op ma 18 dec. 2017 om 20:23 schreef Xavier Léauté :
> Steven, I think you can mark the vote as closed now.
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 5:24 PM
Steven, I think you can mark the vote as closed now.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 5:24 PM Guozhang Wang wrote:
> +1
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Colin McCabe wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > P.S. Suggest to use whenComplete instead of making addWaiter public.
> >
> > (The differences is
+1
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Colin McCabe wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> P.S. Suggest to use whenComplete instead of making addWaiter public.
>
> (The differences is very slight : addWaiter returns void, but
> whenComplete returns a future which gets completed with either an
> exception if
+1 (non-binding)
P.S. Suggest to use whenComplete instead of making addWaiter public.
(The differences is very slight : addWaiter returns void, but
whenComplete returns a future which gets completed with either an
exception if the BiConsumer failed, or the value, otherwise.)
Colin
On Mon, Dec
+1 (binding)
-Ewen
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote:
> +1 (binding) - nice API improvement, thanks for driving it!
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:52 AM Xavier Léauté
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Steven, I believe I addressed all the comments. If the it looks
> good
> > to you let'
+1 (binding) - nice API improvement, thanks for driving it!
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:52 AM Xavier Léauté wrote:
> Thanks Steven, I believe I addressed all the comments. If the it looks good
> to you let's move forward on the vote.
>
> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:50 AM Steven Aerts
> wrote:
>
>
Thanks Steven, I believe I addressed all the comments. If the it looks good
to you let's move forward on the vote.
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 12:50 AM Steven Aerts wrote:
> Hello Xavier,
>
> for me it is perfect to take it along.
> I made a few small remarks in your PR.
>
> Thanks
>
> Op za 9 dec. 2
Hello Xavier,
for me it is perfect to take it along.
I made a few small remarks in your PR.
Thanks
Op za 9 dec. 2017 om 01:29 schreef Xavier Léauté :
> Hi Steve, I just posted in the discussion thread, there's just one tiny fix
> I think would be useful to add while we're making changes to this
Hi Steve, I just posted in the discussion thread, there's just one tiny fix
I think would be useful to add while we're making changes to this API.
Do you mind having a look?
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 11:37 AM Mickael Maison
wrote:
> +1 (non binding)
> Thanks for the KIP
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 6
+1 (non binding)
Thanks for the KIP
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Tom Bentley wrote:
> +1
>
> On 8 December 2017 at 18:34, Ted Yu wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Steven Aerts
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello everybody,
>> >
>> >
>> > I think KIP-218 is crystallized enough to start
+1
On 8 December 2017 at 18:34, Ted Yu wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Steven Aerts
> wrote:
>
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> >
> > I think KIP-218 is crystallized enough to start voting.
> >
> > KIP documentation:
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > 2
+1
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Steven Aerts wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
>
> I think KIP-218 is crystallized enough to start voting.
>
> KIP documentation:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> 218%3A+Make+KafkaFuture.Function+java+8+lambda+compatible
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
Hello everybody,
I think KIP-218 is crystallized enough to start voting.
KIP documentation:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-218%3A+Make+KafkaFuture.Function+java+8+lambda+compatible
Thanks,
Steven
13 matches
Mail list logo
