Samza 0.10.0 with Kafka 0.9.0.0

Hi Everyone, Does anyone run Samza 0.10 with Kafka 0.9.0.0? Is this a stable configuration? Thanks, Michael

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to github/pull-request for code review and check-in

+1. Though I am familiar with the current way, still think the pull requests are simpler. Cheers, Fang, Yan yanfang...@gmail.com On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Milinda Pathirage wrote: > +1. Calcite uses pull requests for contributions from non-committers and > according to my experience w

Review Request 43766: SAMZA-872: little change in Logging docs

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/43766/ --- Review request for samza. Bugs: SAMZA-872 https://issues.apache.org/jira/br

Re: Samza 0.10.0 with Kafka 0.9.0.0

No, but I run Samza 0.10 with kafka 0.8.* It seems fine. On 2/19/16, 4:58 AM, "Michael Ravits" wrote: >Hi Everyone, > >Does anyone run Samza 0.10 with Kafka 0.9.0.0? >Is this a stable configuration? > >Thanks, >Michael

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to github/pull-request for code review and check-in

+1 attaching patches to jira is heavy weight. On Friday, February 19, 2016, Yan Fang wrote: > +1. > > Though I am familiar with the current way, still think the pull requests > are simpler. > > Cheers, > > Fang, Yan > yanfang...@gmail.com > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Milinda Pathirage

Re: Samza 0.10.0 with Kafka 0.9.0.0

Hi, Michael, Samza 0.10 is still using Kafka 0.8.2. We are planning to move to Kafka 0.9 soon. Thanks! -Yi On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:34 AM, David Garcia wrote: > No, but I run Samza 0.10 with kafka 0.8.* It seems fine. > > On 2/19/16, 4:58 AM, "Michael Ravits" wrote: > > >Hi Everyone, > > >

Re: Review Request 43766: SAMZA-872: little change in Logging docs

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/43766/#review119907 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Yi Pan (Data Infrastructure) On Feb. 19,

Re: Review Request 43766: SAMZA-872: little change in Logging docs

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/43766/#review119937 --- docs/learn/documentation/versioned/jobs/logging.md (line 65)

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to github/pull-request for code review and check-in

PRs have worked well for us in Calcite. We still accept patches, if contributors are adamant, but it’s unusual. We don’t use RB. We (or I) haven’t managed to fully automate submission. I pull down to my sandbox, rebase, and merge --ff-only, because in Calcite (as I think in Samza) our policy i

Re: [DISCUSS] Moving to github/pull-request for code review and check-in

Hi, Julian, Thanks for the input. It is a good point that directly merge on github may result in non-linear history in the master branch. I just checked the kafka-merge-pr.py script Kafka uses to merge the PRs to master and the basic workflow it implements is the same as what we manually enforce a

Re: key value store restore time

Hi Leo, At linkedin when we switched to using RocksDB for Samza last year, we did some tests to see how well RocksDB performs. We used the rocksdb microbenchmark( https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/blob/master/java/benchmark/src/main/java/org/rocksdb/benchmark/DbBenchmark.java) to conduct serval