Hi all,
While testing the patch [1], realised that introducing a
new REMOTE_STORAGE_NOT_READY error-code
is not compatible with the consumer. Consumer does not retry the FETCH
request for all the retriable
exceptions [2] instead it retries only for specific error codes. Dropping
the KIP-1007
Thank you for all the votes! I'm closing the vote thread as it is open for
more than 72 hours.
The KIP has been passed with 3 binding and 1 non-binding votes.
--
Kamal
On Fri, Jan 5, 2024 at 5:51 PM Satish Duggana
wrote:
> Thanks Kamal for the KIP.
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 at 1
Thanks Kamal for the KIP.
+1 (binding)
On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 at 17:04, Divij Vaidya wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> --
> Divij Vaidya
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 10:30 AM Luke Chen wrote:
>
> > Hi Kamal,
> >
> > Thanks for the KIP.
> > +1 (binding) from me.
> >
> > Luke
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 202
+1 (binding)
--
Divij Vaidya
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 10:30 AM Luke Chen wrote:
> Hi Kamal,
>
> Thanks for the KIP.
> +1 (binding) from me.
>
> Luke
>
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 4:51 PM Christo Lolov
> wrote:
>
> > Heya Kamal,
> >
> > The proposed change makes sense to me as it will be a more
Hi Kamal,
Thanks for the KIP.
+1 (binding) from me.
Luke
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 4:51 PM Christo Lolov
wrote:
> Heya Kamal,
>
> The proposed change makes sense to me as it will be a more explicit
> behaviour than what Kafka does today - I am happy with it!
>
> +1 (non-binding) from me
>
> Best
Heya Kamal,
The proposed change makes sense to me as it will be a more explicit
behaviour than what Kafka does today - I am happy with it!
+1 (non-binding) from me
Best,
Christo
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 at 09:01, Kamal Chandraprakash <
kamal.chandraprak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like t