t; > > interface AlterTopicRequest extends AbstractRequestMetadata {
> > >
> > > // updated topic configs, or null if not changed
> > >
> > > map updatedConfigs();
> > >
> > > // proposed replica assignment in this requ
with the proposal? Or do you have use cases where the policy maker
is more interested in what the request is changing?
Kind regards,
Tom
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 at 08:41, Tom Bentley wrote:
> Hi Anna and Mickael,
>
> Sorry for remaining silent on this for so long. I should have time to lo
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 18:11, Tom Bentley wrote:
> Hi Anna,
>
> Firstly, let me apologise again about having missed your previous emails
> about this.
>
> Thank you for the feedback. You raise some valid points about ambiguity.
> The problem with pulling the metad
Congratulations Vahid!
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:13 AM Edoardo Comar wrote:
> Bravo Vahid!!!
>
> Edo
>
>
>
> From: Mickael Maison
> To: Users
> Cc: dev
> Date: 16/01/2019 08:48
> Subject:Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Vahid Hashemian
>
>
>
> Congratulations Vahid! Well don
Hi Matthias,
Hopefully we can get the work for KIP 183 merged too.
Thanks,
Tom
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, 19:33 Matthias J. Sax Just a quick update on the release.
>
>
> We have 22 KIP atm:
>
> 81, 207, 258, 289, 313, 328, 331, 339, 341, 351, 359, 361, 367, 368,
> 371, 376, 377, 380, 386, 393, 394,
I saw a comment in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-6598 about
the possibility of removing Kafka's dependency on Zookeeper.
While I'm sure the promised KIP will have a lot of the interesting
technical details, I was wondering if anyone was able to shed any light on
this in terms of what
anisms.
>
> best,
> Colin
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017, at 06:48, Tom Bentley wrote:
> > Hi Steven,
> >
> > I must admit that I didn't really considered that option. I can see how
> > attractive it is from your perspective. In practice it would come w
Hi,
I'd like to start a discussion for KIP-201. The basic point is that new
AdminClient APIs for modifying topics should have a configurable policy to
allow the administrator to veto the modifications. Just adding a
ModifyTopicPolicy would make for awkwardness by having separate policies
for creat
Hi Ted,
Thanks for the feedback!
bq. topic.action.policy.class.name
>
> Since the policy would cover more than one action, how about using actions
> for the second word ?
>
Good point, done.
> For TopicState interface, the abstract modifier for its methods are not
> needed.
>
Fixed.
bq. KIP-
Hi Mickael,
Thanks for the reply.
Thanks for the KIP. Is this meant to superseed KIP-170 ?
> If so, one of our key requirements was to be able to access the
> topics/partitions list from the policy, so an administrator could
> enforce a partition limit for example.
>
It's not meant to replace KI
Hi Ismael,
On 25 September 2017 at 17:51, Ismael Juma wrote:
> We don't have this policy today for what it's worth.
>
Thanks for the clarification. On re-reading I realise I misinterpreted
Guozhang Wang's suggestion when 1.0.0 was first mooted:
> Just to clarify, my proposal is that moving fo
Hi Edoardo and Paolo,
On 26 September 2017 at 14:10, Paolo Patierno wrote:
> What could be useful use cases for having a RecordsDeletePolicy ? Records
> can't be deleted for a topic name ? Starting from a specific offset ?
>
I can imagine some users wanting to prohibit using this API completel
the delete topic response
> (to tell why it's failed).
>
> I'm happy if you incorporate the enhancements to create/alter that allow a
>
> check against the cluster metadata
> and leave out - to anther KIP, or maybe I'll rewrite 170 the changes to
> delete.
>
> thanks
> Edo
>
>
re Engineer (IoT) @ Red Hat
> Microsoft MVP on Azure & IoT
> Microsoft Azure Advisor
>
> Twitter : @ppatierno<http://twitter.com/ppatierno>
> Linkedin : paolopatierno<http://it.linkedin.com/in/paolopatierno>
> Blog : DevExperience<http://paolopatierno.wordpress.com/&g
Hi Edoardo,
what about a single method in ClusterState
>
> interface ClusterState {
> public Map topicsState();
>
> }
>
> which could return a read-only snapshot of the cluster metadata ?
>
Sure that would work too. A concern with that is that we end up allocating
a potentially r
icy.validate method
> would just lazily tap into MetadataCache. No need for big upfront
> allocations.
>
> ciao,
> Edo
> --
>
> Edoardo Comar
>
> IBM Message Hub
>
> IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
>
>
Hi Ismael,
Thanks for looking at the KIP and explaining the thinking behind the
original API.
Looking at the updated KIP, I notice that we actually have a
> TopicDeletionPolicy with a separate config. That seems to be a halfway
> house. Not sure about that.
>
I can certainly see that point of vi
+1 (nonbinding)
On 27 September 2017 at 16:10, Manikumar wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'd like to start the vote on KIP-203. Details are here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> 203%3A+Add+toLowerCase+support+to+sasl.kerberos.principal.to.local+rule
>
> Thanks,
>
I'm starting to think about KIP-179 again. In order to have more
manageably-scoped KIPs and PRs I think it might be worth factoring-out the
throttling part into a separate KIP. Wdyt?
Keeping the throttling discussion in this thread for the moment...
The throttling behaviour is currently spread ac
e
throttle API to be useful for a broad range of use cases, rather than being
too narrowly focussed on what's needed by the existing CLI tools.
Thanks,
Tom
On 28 September 2017 at 17:22, Tom Bentley wrote:
> I'm starting to think about KIP-179 again. In order to have more
we
> > > decided to introduce policies incrementally).
> > >
> > > The main reason why I think the original approach doesn't work well is
> > > that there is no direct mapping between an operation and the policy.
> That
> > > is, we initially thought
> number of partitions).
>
> thanks
> Edo
> --
>
> Edoardo Comar
>
> IBM Message Hub
>
> IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
>
>
>
> From: Tom Bentley
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Date: 02/10/2017 15:15
> Subject:Re: [
ors to clients is much less useful
> 2. Testing policies is much easier with `validateOnly`
>
> Ismael
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Tom Bentley wrote:
>
> > Thanks Edoardo,
> >
> > I've added that motivation to the KIP.
> >
>
* they were explicitly requested by the client.
*/
boolean generatedReplicaAssignments();
}
Thoughts?
On 4 October 2017 at 11:06, Tom Bentley wrote:
> Good point. Then I guess I can do those items too. I would also need to do
> the same changes for DeleteRecordsRequest and
Hi Colin,
Is it really true that "the period when the offset is unavailable should be
brief"? I'm thinking about a producer with acks=1, so the old leader
returns the ProduceResponse immediately and then is replaced before it can
sent a FetchResponse to any followers. The new leader is then waitin
Thanks Colin, it makes sense now, it was the HWM party I was missing.
Cheers,
Tom
On 6 Oct 2017 6:44 pm, "Colin McCabe" wrote:
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, at 12:06, Tom Bentley wrote:
> Hi Colin,
>
> Is it really true that "the period when the offset is unavailable should
>
anks,
Tom
On 5 October 2017 at 12:41, Tom Bentley wrote:
> I'd like to raise a somewhat subtle point about how the proposed API
> should behave.
>
> The current CreateTopicPolicy gets passed either the request partition
> count and replication factor, or the requested assig
I would like to start a vote on KIP-201, which proposes to replace the
existing policy interfaces with a single new policy interface that also
extends policy support to cover new and existing APIs in the AdminClient.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-201%3A+Rationalising+Policy
Hi Jayesh,
Thanks, for the KIP. I few questions/points:
1. Could you elaborate on the motivation a little? Currently it seems to
boil down to "Kafka doesn't have this, yet", but that's not, in itself, a
reason to add it. What can't be done without this change?
2. The second bullet in the "Broker
Hi Clebert,
The motivation section is written as more of a summary and doesn't really
give any motivation for this change. Can you explain why it would be
beneficial for Kafka to have this change? For example, if you have use
cases where the current way of instantiating a producer, consumer or adm
9+-+Change+ReassignPartitionsCommand+to+use+AdminClient
Thanks,
Tom
On 2 October 2017 at 13:15, Tom Bentley wrote:
> One question I have is about whether/how to scope throttling to a
> reassignment. Currently throttles are only loosely associated with
> reassignment: You can start a reass
48 AM, Paolo Patierno <
> > > > > ppatie...@live.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > maybe we want to start w
As detailed at https://kafka.apache.org/contact, to subscribe, send an
email to dev-subscr...@kafka.apache.org < dev-subscr...@kafka.apache.org>.
On 22 October 2017 at 15:15, Veeramani S wrote:
>
>
s to the protocol) it now
> supersedes KIP-170
>
> +1 non-binding
> --
>
> Edoardo Comar
>
> IBM Message Hub
>
> IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
>
>
>
> From: Tom Bentley
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
&g
If there are no further comments, I will start a vote on this next week.
Thanks,
Tom
On 20 October 2017 at 08:33, Tom Bentley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've made a fairly major update to KIP-179 to propose APIs for setting
> throttled rates and throttled replicas with the abilit
sCommand+to+use+AdminClient
Thanks,
Tom
On 25 October 2017 at 10:33, Tom Bentley wrote:
> If there are no further comments, I will start a vote on this next week.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom
>
> On 20 October 2017 at 08:33, Tom Bentley wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I
Hi Steven,
I notice you've renamed the template's "Rejected Alternatives" section to
"Other Alternatives", suggesting they're not rejected yet (or, if you have
rejected them, I think you should give your reasons).
Personally, I'd like to understand the arguments against simply replacing
KafkaFutu
these APIs, Kafka can be used for two broad classes of
> >> application:
> >> > >
> >> > > ** Building real-time streaming data pipelines that reliably get
> data
> >> > between
> >> > > systems or applications.
> >> >
Hi Jorge,
Thanks for the KIP. A few initial comments:
1. The AdminClient doesn't have any API like `listConsumerGroups()`
currently, so in general how does a client know the group ids it is
interested in?
2. Could you fill in the API of DescribeConsumerGroupResult, just so
everyone knows exactly
Hi,
I would like to start a vote on KIP-179 which would add an AdminClient API
for partition reassignment and interbroker replication throttling.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-179+-+Change+ReassignPartitionsCommand+to+use+AdminClient
Thanks,
Tom
Well done Onur.
On 7 November 2017 at 06:52, Jorge Esteban Quilcate Otoya <
quilcate.jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Congratulations Onur!!
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 06:30, Jaikiran Pai
> wrote:
>
> > Congratulations Onur!
> >
> > -Jaikiran
> >
> >
> > On 06/11/17 10:54 PM, Jun Rao wrote:
> > > Hi, ever
t; > A quick question: I think we do not yet have the `list consumer
> groups`
> > > > func as in the old AdminClient. Without this `describe group` given
> the
> > > > group id would not be very useful. Could you include this as well in
> > your
> > >
]
>
> Stephane Maarek | Developer
>
> +61 416 575 980
> steph...@simplemachines.com.au
> simplemachines.com.au
> Level 2, 145 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010
>
> On 25 October 2017 at 19:45, Tom Bentley wrote:
>
> > It's been two weeks since I started the
Hi Stephane,
I think the version number rules are based on semantic versioning, so Kafka
can't remove even deprecated APIs in a minor release (it is a breaking
change, after all). Therefore until Kafka 2.0 we will have to carry the
weight of the deprecated APIs, and Java 7.
Cheers,
Tom
On 9 N
I just noticed that although every other release is tagged in git there are
no tags for 0.11.0.0 and 0.11.0.1. Did something go wrong? Please can they
be tagged retrospectively?
Cheers,
Tom
Not when I run `git tag` locally though.
On 10 November 2017 at 12:44, Ismael Juma wrote:
> They seem to be there:
>
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/tree/0.11.0.0
> https://github.com/apache/kafka/tree/0.11.0.1
>
> Ismael
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Tom B
it fetch --tags ?
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Tom Bentley
> > wrote:
> > > Not when I run `git tag` locally though.
> > >
> > > On 10 November 2017 at 12:44, Ismael Juma wrote:
> > >
> > >> They seem to be there:
>
want the policy
> to be
> > > implemented using Scala ? (like the Authorizer)
> > > It's usually not best practice to mix in scala / java code.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Stephane
> > >
> > > Kind regards
Hi Rajini,
Just to clarify, are you proposing this as a way to configure interbroker
throttling/quotas? I don't think you are, just wanted to check (since
KIP-179 proposes a different mechanism for setting them which supports
their automatic removal).
Cheers,
Tom
On 22 November 2017 at 18:28, R
I have a PR for this (https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/4281) in case
anyone wants to look at the implementation in detail, but right now this
KIP still lacks any committer votes.
Cheers,
Tom
On 22 November 2017 at 17:32, Tom Bentley wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I just wanted to hig
> > > > able to decide without this discussion.
> > > >
> > > > I see two major factors to decide:
> > > > - how soon will KIP-118 (drop support of java 7) be implemented?
> > > > - for which reasons do we drop backwards compatibility for p
i.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> 218%3A+Make+KafkaFuture.Function+java+8+lambda+compatible
>
> Thanks for your patience,
>
>
>Steven
>
>
> Op vr 1 dec. 2017 om 11:55 schreef Tom Bentley :
>
> > Hi Steven,
> >
> > I'm particularly interes
Hi Jonathan,
It might be worth mentioning in the KIP that this is necessary only for
*Kerberos* on SASL, and not other SASL mechanisms. Reading the JIRA it
makes sensem, but I was confused up until that point.
Cheers,
Tom
On 5 December 2017 at 17:53, Skrzypek, Jonathan
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I woul
eassignments
to be added while some are already running. API methods would then be
provided to discover
all the currently running reassignments, determine if a reassignment is
still running etc.
Cheers,
Tom
On 1 November 2017 at 10:20, Tom Bentley wrote:
> This thread has been very quiet for
I am withdrawing this KIP. See the [DISCUSS] thread for the reasons why.
On 7 November 2017 at 08:15, Tom Bentley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to start a vote on KIP-179 which would add an AdminClient API
> for partition reassignment and interbroker replication throttlin
Hi,
This is still very new, but I wanted some quick feedback on a preliminary
KIP which could, I think, help with providing an AdminClient API for
partition reassignment.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-236%3A+Interruptible+Partition+Reassignment
I wasn't sure whether to st
+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 (non-binding)
On 5 May 2017 at 11:57, Mickael Maison wrote:
> Thanks for the KIP Rajini, this will significantly simplify providing
> custom credential providers
> +1 (non binding)
>
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Rajini Sivaram
> wrote:
> > Can we have some more reviews or votes for this
rge.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Xavier
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 4:03 AM Steven Aerts
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tom,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the review.
> > > > updated the motiv
+1 (nonbinding)
On 12 December 2017 at 15:34, Ted Yu wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Rajini Sivaram
> wrote:
>
> > Since there are no more outstanding comments, I would like to start vote
> > for KIP-226:
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-
> > 226+-+
onfigs. For example, every time we change the
> > assignment for a set of partitions, we could further write a sequential
> > node /admin/reassignment_changes/[change_x]. That way, the controller
> > only needs to watch the change path. Once a change is triggered, the
> > controller ca
+1
On 12 December 2017 at 20:38, Sriram Subramanian wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Manikumar
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Rajini Sivaram >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Thanks, Ismael!
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Damian Guy
dmin/reassignment/$topic/$partition
>
> Note the lack of 's' for reassignment. It would be good to make zookeeper
> paths consistent.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Tom Bentley
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jun and Ted,
> >
> > Jun, you'r
> Should we seek to improve this algorithm in this KIP, or leave that as a
later optimisation?
I've updated the KIP with a proposed algorithm.
On 14 December 2017 at 09:57, Tom Bentley wrote:
> Thanks Ted, now fixed.
>
> On 13 December 2017 at 18:38, Ted Yu wrote:
>
&
Hi,
KIP-236 lays the foundations for AdminClient APIs to do with partition
reassignment. I'd now like to start discussing KIP-240, which adds APIs to
the AdminClient to list and describe the current reassignments.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-240%3A+AdminClient.listReassi
Just wanted to mention that I've started KIP-240, which builds on top of
this one to provide an AdminClient API for listing and describing
reassignments.
On 15 December 2017 at 14:34, Tom Bentley wrote:
> > Should we seek to improve this algorithm in this KIP, or leave that a
> 14. Implementation wise, currently, we register a watcher of the isr path
> of each partition being reassigned. This has the potential issue of
> registering many listeners. An improvement could be just piggybacking on
> the existing IsrChangeNotificationHandler, which only watches a single
y poll for changes.
>
> No clue how difficult it would be to implement, maybe you can piggyback on
> some version number in the repartition messages or on zookeeper.
>
> This is just an idea, not a must have feature for me. We can always poll
> over
> the proposed api.
>
&
s();
> the return value should be a Collection.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Tom Bentley
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > KIP-236 lays the foundations for AdminClient APIs to do with partition
> > reassignment. I'd now like to start discussing
bloat.
AdminClient.listPartitions() already provides for passing a null collection
of partitions to discover all the reassignments, so overall there is no
loss of functionality. I'm happy to add it back if people really think it's
necessary.
On 18 December 2017 at 10:49, Tom Bentley wrote:
> Hi
+1
On 18 December 2017 at 23:28, Vahid S Hashemian
wrote:
> +1
>
> Thanks for the KIP.
>
> --Vahid
>
>
>
> From: Ted Yu
> To: dev@kafka.apache.org
> Date: 12/18/2017 02:45 PM
> Subject:Re: [VOTE] KIP-243: Make ProducerConfig and ConsumerConfig
> constructors public
>
>
>
> +1
>
; refer to the current assignment? Could you also describe
> where the length of the original assignment is stored in ZK?
>
> 13. Hmm, I am not sure that the cancellation needs to be done for the whole
> batch. The reason that I brought this up is for consistency. The KIP allows
>
idea.
> But I assume that in practice, this will imply too much change to the
> code base to be
> viable.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>Steven
>
>
> 2017-12-18 11:49 GMT+01:00 Tom Bentley :
> > Hi Steven,
> >
> > I think it would be useful to be able
the
reassignment of partition my-topic/42 = [4,5,6]
3. Update /admin/reassign_partitions to add your-topic/12=[7,8,9]
4. New controller resumes
> Thanks,
>
> Jun
>
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 2:43 AM, Tom Bentley
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jun,
> >
> > 10. Another concern of
y can look at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=73632065&selectedPageVersions=20&selectedPageVersions=18
and
https://github.com/apache/kafka/commit/269b65279c746bc54c611141a5a6509f9b310f11
Kind regards,
Tom
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 at 16:30, Tom B
has
> been around a while and reading through the threads, it looks like there
> has been a lot of interest in it.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Rajini
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:25 AM Tom Bentley wrote:
>
> > Hi Anna and Mickael,
> >
> > Anna, did you hav
to support broker config updates, it may be
> good to start a new vote thread since the other one is quite old and
> perhaps the KIP has changed since then.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 3:58 AM Tom Bentley wrote:
>
> > Hi Rajini,
> >
> > I'd be happy to
Hi Colin,
In the example given, of a FooResponse, both the optional fields have the
tag 0x0001. The text says "This number must be unique within the context it
appears in.". My first thought was the example tags, must be wrong. But I
think I misunderstood what you meant by "the context" – I assume
Hi Colin,
Thanks for the KIP.
Currently ZooKeeper provides a convenient notification mechanism for
knowing that broker and topic configuration has changed. While KIP-500 does
suggest that incremental metadata update is expected to come to clients
eventually, that would seem to imply that for some
+1 (non-binding). Thanks!
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:37 PM Satish Duggana
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) Thanks for the KIP, so useful.
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:42 PM Mickael Maison
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non binding)
> > Thanks for the KIP!
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 9:36 AM Andrew Schofield
> >
Hi All,
I've written KIP-506 proposing an RPC and Admin interface for setting SCRAM
user passwords. I think there could be an interesting discussion over the
relative merits of hashing on the broker or client. In any case I'd be
grateful for any comments you may have:
https://cwiki.apache.org/con
do I thought I'd
check whether anyone has any more comments. So please let me know any
feedback for this KIP.
Many thanks,
Tom
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 10:46 AM Tom Bentley wrote:
> Hi Rajini,
>
> I've made a number of changes to the KIP.
>
> 1. I've added RequestedTop
to
> have Principals for PLAINTEXT sessions or use the default ANONYMOUS
> Principal.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:52 AM Tom Bentley wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > As far as I can see the motivation for KIP-201 is still valid, and as far
>
Hi Paolo,
Usually you can just follow the links added by asfbot on the PR, but these
are currently giving 404 (and not just for your failures, so maybe an ASF
infrastructure problem?)
Cheers,
Tom
On 12 June 2017 at 09:20, Paolo Patierno wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> I opened this JIRA with a related
Please could I be added to the JIRA contributor list so that I can assign
issues to myself?
Thanks,
Tom
It seems to me that in the most common case the partition isn't going to be
magically created and in that case it's more helpful to quit with an error
than to sit there waiting for the partition to be created.
Hi,
I noticed that the command line tools could use a little love. For
instance, I was surprised that most of them don't support `--help`, and
generally there are a few inconsistencies.
KIP-14 is dormant and AFAICS no one is working on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2111 either. So i
lose to 20 commands I have made changes to. I will try to push
> something out by end of day today. So I think I will cover 1) from your
> list below and not 2) and 3).
>
> Thanks Tom.
>
> Regards,
> Mariam.
>
>
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Tom Bentley ---06/16/
> I just checked kafka-topics.sh and the only required argument there is
> --zookeeper option. Not sure if you were thinking of some other command.
>
> I meant that for kafka-topics.sh --create requires --topic (amongst
others), but --list does not.
(For example, using these methods we can say som
According to the website [1] I need to ask to be able to assign JIRAs to
myself, but I'm still unable to do this. Could someone set this up for me
please?
Thanks,
Tom
[1]: https://kafka.apache.org/contributing
On 14 June 2017 at 13:43, Tom Bentley wrote:
> Please could I be added to
Please can I also be added? My username is tombentley.
Thanks
Tom
On 21 June 2017 at 12:03, Damian Guy wrote:
> Hi Andras,
>
> You should have access now.
>
> Thanks,
> Damian
>
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 at 10:45 Andras Beni wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'd like to contribute to Apache Kafka.
> >
Thanks!
On 21 Jun 2017 4:20 pm, "Damian Guy" wrote:
> Done - thanks
>
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 at 12:19 Tom Bentley wrote:
>
> > Please can I also be added? My username is tombentley.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
Hi Evgeniy,
The wiki page you link to there is about contributing improvements for
kafka.apache.org. But since you say "mirroring doc in Confluence" I assume
you want to edit
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=27846330,
if so you will need one of the committers to giv
is evis.
>
> Best regards,
> Evgeny
>
> С уважением,
> Евгений Веретенников
>
> 2017-06-23 16:43 GMT+03:00 Tom Bentley :
>
> > Hi Evgeniy,
> >
> > The wiki page you link to there is about contributing improvements for
> > kafka.apache.org. But s
Hi Damian, my username is tombentley
Thanks
Tom
On 23 June 2017 at 14:57, Damian Guy wrote:
> Evgeniy, you should now have access.
>
> Tom & Paolo what are your wiki usernames?
>
> Thanks,
> Damian
>
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 at 14:52 Tom Bentley wrote:
>
> &
I realise that 0.11.0.0 is imminent and so the committers are rightly going
to be rather focussed on that, but I opened some PRs nearly a week ago and
they don't seem to have been looked at.
Even a comment on the PR to the effect of "We'll look at this right after
0.11.0.0" would at least reassure
Hi Paolo,
I don't have an opinion about which you should use, but I certainly agree
that two option parsing dependencies appears to be 1 too many.
Is there a reason why you prefer joptsimple?
Cheers,
Tom
On 10 July 2017 at 08:38, Paolo Patierno wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
>
> working on re-writing t
The project recently switched from all JIRA events being sent to the dev
mailling list, to just issue creations. This seems like a good thing
because the dev mailling list was very noisy before, and if you want to see
all the JIRA comments etc you can subscribe to the JIRA list. If you don't
subscr
Hi,
I've written KIP-178 (
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-178+-+Change+ReassignPartitionsCommand+to+use+AdminClient)
for changing the ReassignPartitionsCommand (a.k.a.
kafka-reassign-partitions.sh)to remove the dependency on ZooKeeper and
instead provide the same functionali
Hi Ismael,
Answers in-line:
1. Have you considered how progress would be reported? Partition
> reassignment can take a long time and it would be good to have a mechanism
> for progress reporting.
>
The ReassignPartitionsCommand doesn't currently have a mechanism to track
progress. All you can do
1 - 100 of 583 matches
Mail list logo
