I'd like to have https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19221 included if
possible. Do you need me to open a new ticket for the backport, separate
from the original for 4.0.0 at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-17078?
Den tors. 27. mar. 2025 kl. 03.03 skrev Luke Chen :
> Hi Matthias,
>
>
Hi,
Thanks for the KIP. A few comments:
1. Incompatible changes are generally not allowed in minor releases. Are
you proposing a change for a minor release (eg 4.1) or for a major release
(5.0)?
2. Given that clients in 4.0 support brokers with version 2.1 or higher,
`offsetsForTimes` should neve
Another point of clarification,
I think we should reserve the Approved-by for the committer(s) who approved
the PR. If a non-committer approves a PR, I think it should appear as
Reviewed-by.
-David
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 5:58 PM Ismael Juma wrote:
> Hi Josep,
>
> To clarify, there is no subj
Hi Stig,
Thanks for bringing this to us.
I'm +1 for backporting to 3.9 branch since there's no workaround for Java
24.
Thanks.
Luke
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 1:14 AM Stig Rohde Døssing
wrote:
> Thanks Ismail,
>
> I've opened https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19221 just to get any
> test
> f
Hi Stig,
Let's make sure we have consensus from the community for this backporting
first.
I've just replied in this thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread/6k942pphowd28dh9gn6xbnngk6nxs3n0
Thanks.
Luke
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 8:08 AM Matthias J. Sax wrote:
> We don't need a new ticket. We can
Hi All,
I am still strongly in support of backporting this patch as I stated in the
earlier discussion thread.
Thank you Stig, Anton, Danish, Mateusz, Manfred, Monica, Istvan, Vincent,
Clement, Anshu, Foivos, Drakgoku, Severin, Ozan, Georgios, and Guillaume,
members of our extended community who
Hi Harish,
Thanks for this great KIP. I’m really looking forward to being able to write
Kafka docs in Markdown instead of HTML.
+1 (binding)
Thanks,
Andrew
From: Harish Vishwanath
Date: Wednesday, 26 March 2025 at 23:38
To: dev@kafka.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] KIP-1133: AK Documentation and W
Hi Harish,
Thanks for this EPIC KIP.
+1 (non-binding)
Sincerely,
TengYao
Andrew Schofield 於 2025年3月27日 週四
下午5:32寫道：
> Hi Harish,
> Thanks for this great KIP. I’m really looking forward to being able to
> write Kafka docs in Markdown instead of HTML.
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
> Fr
Hi Chu Cheng Li,
In KIP-1104, there is deprecation plan for old join methods. However, in the PR
#17756,
it didn't mark these functions as deprecated. Do we still want to deprecate
join methods?
Or we can remove deprecation plan in the KIP. Thanks!
Best Regards,
PoAn
On 2024/11/19 17:55:32 Chu
Chia-Ping Tsai created KAFKA-19049:
--
Summary: Remove the `@ExtendWith(ClusterTestExtensions.class)`
from code base
Key: KAFKA-19049
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-19049
Project: Kaf
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-17830?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Chia-Ping Tsai resolved KAFKA-17830.
Fix Version/s: 4.1.0
Assignee: PoAn Yang (was: Anshul Goyal)
Resolution: F
Hi David,
I find having the "commented" and "reviewed" distinctions a bit subjective.
In my opinion, distinguishing between "approved-by" and "reviewed-by" is as
far as I would go.
Regarding the Jira trailer, I don't have any strong opinion, but it does
help in the case of a PR working on different
Someone asked a detailed question about Kafka and I am guessing that it
was someone from this list. It looks like the email address got removed
before the person received the answer. Thank you for asking your
question which revealed a subtle bug in my code and I am now working on
a fix.
On 3/
Hi All,
I also agree with the having consistency with the other clients, so I'm
also a +1 for using Properties/Map.
Thanks,
Bill
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 7:28 AM Bruno Cadonna wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I proposed to use constructors with StreamsConfig because I wanted a
> public API that says to the use
Frédérik ROULEAU created KAFKA-19051:
Summary: Fix implicit acknowledgement cannot be override when
RecordDeserializationException occurs
Key: KAFKA-19051
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-19051
I think Lucas makes a good point. If we want to maintain consistency with
the currents state and intended direction of the clients w.r.t config
classes, we should definitely (and perhaps only) offer the Map/Properties
version of the APIs
I even submitted a KIP a while back to open up the visibilit
Hi Josep,
To clarify, there is no subjectivity as far as I can tell. The
approved-by/reviewed-by trailers would be used if you used the PR `approve`
button. The former for committers and the latter for non committers. Anyone
else who left comments would be in the commented-by trailers. The latter
We don't need a new ticket. We can just add `3.9.1` as fixed version
after the PR is merged.
-Matthias
On 3/27/25 8:29 PM, Stig Rohde Døssing wrote:
I'd like to have https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/19221 included if
possible. Do you need me to open a new ticket for the backport, separat
and providing a static create method that takes a kafka consumer
object as a parameter or we can make the ConsumerGroupMetada inner not
static class in KafkaConsumer
Can you elaborate on the "static create method" -- frankly, it sounds a
little bit clumsy to me?
I guess we could make the clas
Utku Aydin created KAFKA-19050:
--
Summary: kafka-streams-integration-tests artifact is empty
Key: KAFKA-19050
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-19050
Project: Kafka
Issue Type: Imp
Thanks Po-An for the heads up,
I have just removed the deprecation plan in the KIP.
That was discussed before. As we don't want to break the compatible to
client, we shouldn't remove any existing API.
Best regards,
Peter
PoAn Yang 於 2025年3月27日 週四 下午5:55寫道：
> Hi Chu Cheng Li,
>
> In KIP-1104, t
Hi,
I proposed to use constructors with StreamsConfig because I wanted a
public API that says to the users: "The config you pass to Streams will
not be modified." That the first call in a constructor is a
transformation from Properties/Map to StreamsConfig a user might or
might not know.
I
Thanks for the feedback! A few common answers first:
I think "Approved-by" should be the only required trailer. Since approving
a PR implies a review, I think we can keep the mandatory trailers just to a
single one.
"Co-authored-by" is added automatically by GitHub if a PR has commits from
anothe
23 matches
Mail list logo
