Re: TL;DR; of the first KIP hangout

I took a pass on these and tried to update our summary table based on Gwen's summary. There are a couple that are just waiting on the owner to hold their vote. There are a number that are still very sparse on detail. I really want to encourage everyone to take a look at the python PEPs, I think th

Re: TL;DR; of the first KIP hangout

Thanks Gwen! On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 12:12:24PM -0800, Gwen Shapira wrote: > Hi, > > I put together a (very) short summary of the discussion and decisions: > > KIPs: > We reviewed the list of KIPs posted here: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals > > *

Re: TL;DR; of the first KIP hangout

Thanks Gwen! -Jay On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote: > Hi, > > I put together a (very) short summary of the discussion and decisions: > > KIPs: > We reviewed the list of KIPs posted here: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals > > * K

Re: TL;DR; of the first KIP hangout

Thanks Gwen! One thing that I forgot to mention during the meeting is that we need to create a KIP for another producer API change also (KAFKA-1660). The code is almost ready and we just need to figure out some details about interacting with concurrent flush() calls. Guozhang On Tue, Mar 3, 2015

TL;DR; of the first KIP hangout

Hi, I put together a (very) short summary of the discussion and decisions: KIPs: We reviewed the list of KIPs posted here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals * KIP-2: Ready for formal vote * KIP-3: Discussion closed. There’s a new KIP (14) for standardi