[VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>]

Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes to deprecate
the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1

Thanks!
Ryanne

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Colin McCabe <co...@cmccabe.xyz>]

Thanks, Ryanne. Can you add information about this way forward to the KIP? Also it would be good to clarify that this work needs to get done before removing MM1.

best,
Colin


On Thu, May 20, 2021, at 16:00, Ryanne Dolan wrote:
> Hey y'all, reviving this thread because it seems we have a way forward
> w.r.t. IdentityReplicationPolicy aka LegacyReplicationPolicy, which I
> believe is the only missing feature in MM2 that we need to deprecate MM1.
> 
> If there are no objections over the next couple of days I'll consider this
> adopted. Thanks!
> 
> Ryanne
> 
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 10:48 AM Colin McCabe <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Ryanne,
> >
> > Thanks for the response.  It would be good to have a PR for KIP-382, I
> > agree.
> >
> > Perhaps one possible compromise for KIP-712 would be to make the changes
> > in MM2 first, and then backport them to MM1.  I think it's important that
> > when we have a deprecated way of doing something and a non-deprecated way,
> > the non-deprecated way is the recommended way.  If we are onboarding more
> > users to the deprecated code path (for example, because there's major
> > features missing in the new code path), we're doing something wrong.
> >
> > best,
> > Colin
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, at 15:48, Ryanne Dolan wrote:
> > > Colin, the only feature gap I'm aware of is that users must provide their
> > > own ReplicationPolicy in order to replicate topics without renaming them.
> > > This is straightforward, and such ReplicationPolicy implementations are
> > > easy to find. We could provide one OOTB, and indeed KIP-382 proposes we
> > do
> > > so, but the PR is missing. I'm happy to pick that up, no problem.
> > >
> > > wrt KIP-712, the changes are immediately applicable to MM2, at least as
> > it
> > > is currently written. I have no dog in the fight wrt whether the changes
> > > also land in MM1, but, assuming both KIPs land concurrently in 3.0, I
> > don't
> > > see why the two KIPs would be in conflict. Obvs, this KIP marks MM1 as
> > > deprecated going forward, but I don't think that precludes a concurrent
> > > improvement.
> > >
> > > If KIP-712 were being proposed after 3.0, I'd agree with you.
> > >
> > > I think the reality is that MM1 has been sort of unofficially deprecated
> > > for a long time, so people are understandably disinterested in landing
> > new
> > > features there. But let's have that debate in the KIP-712 thread. I
> > believe
> > > we'd be having the same discussion there with or without KIP-720 passing.
> > >
> > > Ryanne
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 2:07 PM Colin McCabe <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for bringing this up, Ismael.  I agree that we need to figure
> > this
> > > > out before we accept this KIP.
> > > >
> > > > If MM1 is deprecated, then that means we are telling users they need to
> > > > migrate away from it as soon as they can.  I think that rules out
> > adding
> > > > big new features to MM1, unless those features relate towards
> > migrating to
> > > > MM2.  So we need to figure out if that's really what we want to do, or
> > if
> > > > we want to keep MM1 around for a while.  This is certainly relevant to
> > the
> > > > discussion in the KIP-712 thread -- right now, these KIPs contradict
> > each
> > > > other.
> > > >
> > > > It's also important that MM2 reaches feature parity with MM1 before
> > > > deprecating MM1.  Or if we can't reach feature parity, we should
> > explain
> > > > why the unsupported features are not needed going forward.  Do we have
> > a
> > > > list of all the gaps?
> > > >
> > > > best,
> > > > Colin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, at 09:44, Ismael Juma wrote:
> > > > > OK. :) Maybe something like:
> > > > >
> > > > > "We believe MirrorMaker 2 is an improvement over the original
> > MirrorMaker
> > > > > when it comes to reliability and functionality for the majority of
> > use
> > > > > cases. We intend to focus on MirrorMaker 2 for future development and
> > > > hence
> > > > > we propose deprecating MirrorMaker 2 for future removal."
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this accurate? How does it sound?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ismael
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:10 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ah, do you mind wording it for me, Ismael? Or do you mean I should
> > just
> > > > > > remove the "MM1 is still useful" part?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 11:01 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we please add proper motivation? I'm -1 with the current
> > > > motivation
> > > > > > > even though I'm in favor of the change.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 8:46 AM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedolan@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hey y'all, looks like we've got the requisite votes for this to
> > > > pass,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the various concerns wrt KIP-712 are now being discussed on
> > that
> > > > > > thread.
> > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > I'm going to go ahead and close the vote here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the votes!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 11:26 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It does mean more than that. We don't remove or replace
> > things in
> > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > Kafka without good reasons (since it's typically costly for
> > > > users).
> > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > once something is scheduled for removal, it's typically in
> > > > > > maintenance
> > > > > > > > mode
> > > > > > > > > and only bug fixes are expected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 8:28 PM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ismael, "deprecated" implies something is scheduled to be
> > > > removed
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > replaced, but I don't think it implies anything more than
> > that.
> > > > > > > KIP-720
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > proposing to deprecate MM1 so it can eventually be removed.
> > > > That's
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > particular KIP is proposing.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 7:24 PM Ismael Juma <
> > ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Tom, this is a good elaboration on what I meant.
> > > > Also, if
> > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > deprecated, then we should definitely not be adding
> > features.
> > > > > > I'm a
> > > > > > > > > > puzzled
> > > > > > > > > > > that we are saying that MM1 is useful, deserves
> > additional
> > > > > > > > development
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > should be deprecated - all at the same time.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 9:20 AM Tom Bentley <
> > > > tbentley@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ryanne,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > With respect, there's a difference between "we still
> > use it
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't
> > yet"
> > > > and
> > > > > > > "it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use
> > case
> > > > > > > properly".
> > > > > > > > > > While
> > > > > > > > > > > > the former is not a good reason to argue against
> > > > deprecation,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > latter
> > > > > > > > > > > > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely
> > > > clear
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use
> > cases as
> > > > MM1.
> > > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other
> > you're
> > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1
> > use
> > > > cases
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer
> > useful, I
> > > > > > think.
> > > > > > > > OTOH
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused
> > > > about
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > situation is.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2
> > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > replace?
> > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're
> > > > > > > intentionally
> > > > > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > > > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to
> > argue
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > deprecation
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's
> > > > important
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > xyz"
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such
> > responses.
> > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > motivation
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there
> > isn't
> > > > much
> > > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > say,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <
> > > > > > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't
> > > > include
> > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker
> > > > remains
> > > > > > > > > useful,
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major
> > release to
> > > > > > > > officially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain
> > why
> > > > it's
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > longer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > instead.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > > > > > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720,
> > which
> > > > > > proposes
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0
> > major
> > > > > > release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>]

Hey y'all, reviving this thread because it seems we have a way forward
w.r.t. IdentityReplicationPolicy aka LegacyReplicationPolicy, which I
believe is the only missing feature in MM2 that we need to deprecate MM1.

If there are no objections over the next couple of days I'll consider this
adopted. Thanks!

Ryanne

On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 10:48 AM Colin McCabe <cm...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Ryanne,
>
> Thanks for the response.  It would be good to have a PR for KIP-382, I
> agree.
>
> Perhaps one possible compromise for KIP-712 would be to make the changes
> in MM2 first, and then backport them to MM1.  I think it's important that
> when we have a deprecated way of doing something and a non-deprecated way,
> the non-deprecated way is the recommended way.  If we are onboarding more
> users to the deprecated code path (for example, because there's major
> features missing in the new code path), we're doing something wrong.
>
> best,
> Colin
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, at 15:48, Ryanne Dolan wrote:
> > Colin, the only feature gap I'm aware of is that users must provide their
> > own ReplicationPolicy in order to replicate topics without renaming them.
> > This is straightforward, and such ReplicationPolicy implementations are
> > easy to find. We could provide one OOTB, and indeed KIP-382 proposes we
> do
> > so, but the PR is missing. I'm happy to pick that up, no problem.
> >
> > wrt KIP-712, the changes are immediately applicable to MM2, at least as
> it
> > is currently written. I have no dog in the fight wrt whether the changes
> > also land in MM1, but, assuming both KIPs land concurrently in 3.0, I
> don't
> > see why the two KIPs would be in conflict. Obvs, this KIP marks MM1 as
> > deprecated going forward, but I don't think that precludes a concurrent
> > improvement.
> >
> > If KIP-712 were being proposed after 3.0, I'd agree with you.
> >
> > I think the reality is that MM1 has been sort of unofficially deprecated
> > for a long time, so people are understandably disinterested in landing
> new
> > features there. But let's have that debate in the KIP-712 thread. I
> believe
> > we'd be having the same discussion there with or without KIP-720 passing.
> >
> > Ryanne
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 2:07 PM Colin McCabe <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for bringing this up, Ismael.  I agree that we need to figure
> this
> > > out before we accept this KIP.
> > >
> > > If MM1 is deprecated, then that means we are telling users they need to
> > > migrate away from it as soon as they can.  I think that rules out
> adding
> > > big new features to MM1, unless those features relate towards
> migrating to
> > > MM2.  So we need to figure out if that's really what we want to do, or
> if
> > > we want to keep MM1 around for a while.  This is certainly relevant to
> the
> > > discussion in the KIP-712 thread -- right now, these KIPs contradict
> each
> > > other.
> > >
> > > It's also important that MM2 reaches feature parity with MM1 before
> > > deprecating MM1.  Or if we can't reach feature parity, we should
> explain
> > > why the unsupported features are not needed going forward.  Do we have
> a
> > > list of all the gaps?
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Colin
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, at 09:44, Ismael Juma wrote:
> > > > OK. :) Maybe something like:
> > > >
> > > > "We believe MirrorMaker 2 is an improvement over the original
> MirrorMaker
> > > > when it comes to reliability and functionality for the majority of
> use
> > > > cases. We intend to focus on MirrorMaker 2 for future development and
> > > hence
> > > > we propose deprecating MirrorMaker 2 for future removal."
> > > >
> > > > Is this accurate? How does it sound?
> > > >
> > > > Ismael
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:10 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ah, do you mind wording it for me, Ismael? Or do you mean I should
> just
> > > > > remove the "MM1 is still useful" part?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ryanne
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 11:01 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Can we please add proper motivation? I'm -1 with the current
> > > motivation
> > > > > > even though I'm in favor of the change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 8:46 AM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedolan@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey y'all, looks like we've got the requisite votes for this to
> > > pass,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the various concerns wrt KIP-712 are now being discussed on
> that
> > > > > thread.
> > > > > > So
> > > > > > > I'm going to go ahead and close the vote here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the votes!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 11:26 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It does mean more than that. We don't remove or replace
> things in
> > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > Kafka without good reasons (since it's typically costly for
> > > users).
> > > > > And
> > > > > > > > once something is scheduled for removal, it's typically in
> > > > > maintenance
> > > > > > > mode
> > > > > > > > and only bug fixes are expected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 8:28 PM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ismael, "deprecated" implies something is scheduled to be
> > > removed
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > replaced, but I don't think it implies anything more than
> that.
> > > > > > KIP-720
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > proposing to deprecate MM1 so it can eventually be removed.
> > > That's
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > particular KIP is proposing.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 7:24 PM Ismael Juma <
> ismael@juma.me.uk>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks Tom, this is a good elaboration on what I meant.
> > > Also, if
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > deprecated, then we should definitely not be adding
> features.
> > > > > I'm a
> > > > > > > > > puzzled
> > > > > > > > > > that we are saying that MM1 is useful, deserves
> additional
> > > > > > > development
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > should be deprecated - all at the same time.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 9:20 AM Tom Bentley <
> > > tbentley@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ryanne,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > With respect, there's a difference between "we still
> use it
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't
> yet"
> > > and
> > > > > > "it's
> > > > > > > > > > > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use
> case
> > > > > > properly".
> > > > > > > > > While
> > > > > > > > > > > the former is not a good reason to argue against
> > > deprecation,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > latter
> > > > > > > > > > > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely
> > > clear
> > > > > to
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use
> cases as
> > > MM1.
> > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other
> you're
> > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1
> use
> > > cases
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer
> useful, I
> > > > > think.
> > > > > > > OTOH
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused
> > > about
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > situation is.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2
> > > cannot
> > > > > > > replace?
> > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're
> > > > > > intentionally
> > > > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to
> argue
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > > deprecation
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's
> > > important
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > xyz"
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such
> responses.
> > > The
> > > > > > > > > motivation
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there
> isn't
> > > much
> > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > say,
> > > > > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <
> > > > > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't
> > > include
> > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker
> > > remains
> > > > > > > > useful,
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major
> release to
> > > > > > > officially
> > > > > > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain
> why
> > > it's
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > longer
> > > > > > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > > > > instead.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > > > > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720,
> which
> > > > > proposes
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0
> major
> > > > > release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Colin McCabe <cm...@apache.org>]

Hi Ryanne,

Thanks for the response.  It would be good to have a PR for KIP-382, I agree.

Perhaps one possible compromise for KIP-712 would be to make the changes in MM2 first, and then backport them to MM1.  I think it's important that when we have a deprecated way of doing something and a non-deprecated way, the non-deprecated way is the recommended way.  If we are onboarding more users to the deprecated code path (for example, because there's major features missing in the new code path), we're doing something wrong.

best,
Colin


On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, at 15:48, Ryanne Dolan wrote:
> Colin, the only feature gap I'm aware of is that users must provide their
> own ReplicationPolicy in order to replicate topics without renaming them.
> This is straightforward, and such ReplicationPolicy implementations are
> easy to find. We could provide one OOTB, and indeed KIP-382 proposes we do
> so, but the PR is missing. I'm happy to pick that up, no problem.
> 
> wrt KIP-712, the changes are immediately applicable to MM2, at least as it
> is currently written. I have no dog in the fight wrt whether the changes
> also land in MM1, but, assuming both KIPs land concurrently in 3.0, I don't
> see why the two KIPs would be in conflict. Obvs, this KIP marks MM1 as
> deprecated going forward, but I don't think that precludes a concurrent
> improvement.
> 
> If KIP-712 were being proposed after 3.0, I'd agree with you.
> 
> I think the reality is that MM1 has been sort of unofficially deprecated
> for a long time, so people are understandably disinterested in landing new
> features there. But let's have that debate in the KIP-712 thread. I believe
> we'd be having the same discussion there with or without KIP-720 passing.
> 
> Ryanne
> 
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 2:07 PM Colin McCabe <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for bringing this up, Ismael.  I agree that we need to figure this
> > out before we accept this KIP.
> >
> > If MM1 is deprecated, then that means we are telling users they need to
> > migrate away from it as soon as they can.  I think that rules out adding
> > big new features to MM1, unless those features relate towards migrating to
> > MM2.  So we need to figure out if that's really what we want to do, or if
> > we want to keep MM1 around for a while.  This is certainly relevant to the
> > discussion in the KIP-712 thread -- right now, these KIPs contradict each
> > other.
> >
> > It's also important that MM2 reaches feature parity with MM1 before
> > deprecating MM1.  Or if we can't reach feature parity, we should explain
> > why the unsupported features are not needed going forward.  Do we have a
> > list of all the gaps?
> >
> > best,
> > Colin
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, at 09:44, Ismael Juma wrote:
> > > OK. :) Maybe something like:
> > >
> > > "We believe MirrorMaker 2 is an improvement over the original MirrorMaker
> > > when it comes to reliability and functionality for the majority of use
> > > cases. We intend to focus on MirrorMaker 2 for future development and
> > hence
> > > we propose deprecating MirrorMaker 2 for future removal."
> > >
> > > Is this accurate? How does it sound?
> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:10 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ah, do you mind wording it for me, Ismael? Or do you mean I should just
> > > > remove the "MM1 is still useful" part?
> > > >
> > > > Ryanne
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 11:01 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Can we please add proper motivation? I'm -1 with the current
> > motivation
> > > > > even though I'm in favor of the change.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 8:46 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey y'all, looks like we've got the requisite votes for this to
> > pass,
> > > > and
> > > > > > the various concerns wrt KIP-712 are now being discussed on that
> > > > thread.
> > > > > So
> > > > > > I'm going to go ahead and close the vote here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the votes!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 11:26 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It does mean more than that. We don't remove or replace things in
> > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > Kafka without good reasons (since it's typically costly for
> > users).
> > > > And
> > > > > > > once something is scheduled for removal, it's typically in
> > > > maintenance
> > > > > > mode
> > > > > > > and only bug fixes are expected.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 8:28 PM Ryanne Dolan <
> > ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ismael, "deprecated" implies something is scheduled to be
> > removed
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > replaced, but I don't think it implies anything more than that.
> > > > > KIP-720
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > proposing to deprecate MM1 so it can eventually be removed.
> > That's
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > particular KIP is proposing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 7:24 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks Tom, this is a good elaboration on what I meant.
> > Also, if
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > deprecated, then we should definitely not be adding features.
> > > > I'm a
> > > > > > > > puzzled
> > > > > > > > > that we are saying that MM1 is useful, deserves additional
> > > > > > development
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > should be deprecated - all at the same time.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 9:20 AM Tom Bentley <
> > tbentley@redhat.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Ryanne,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it
> > > > > because
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet"
> > and
> > > > > "it's
> > > > > > > > > > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case
> > > > > properly".
> > > > > > > > While
> > > > > > > > > > the former is not a good reason to argue against
> > deprecation,
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > latter
> > > > > > > > > > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely
> > clear
> > > > to
> > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as
> > MM1.
> > > > > On
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're
> > > > > saying
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use
> > cases
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I
> > > > think.
> > > > > > OTOH
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused
> > about
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > situation is.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2
> > cannot
> > > > > > replace?
> > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're
> > > > > intentionally
> > > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue
> > for
> > > > > > > > > deprecation
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's
> > important
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > xyz"
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses.
> > The
> > > > > > > > motivation
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't
> > much
> > > > > > else
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > say,
> > > > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <
> > > > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't
> > include
> > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker
> > remains
> > > > > > > useful,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to
> > > > > > officially
> > > > > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why
> > it's
> > > > no
> > > > > > > longer
> > > > > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > > > instead.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > > > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which
> > > > proposes
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major
> > > > release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>]

Colin, the only feature gap I'm aware of is that users must provide their
own ReplicationPolicy in order to replicate topics without renaming them.
This is straightforward, and such ReplicationPolicy implementations are
easy to find. We could provide one OOTB, and indeed KIP-382 proposes we do
so, but the PR is missing. I'm happy to pick that up, no problem.

wrt KIP-712, the changes are immediately applicable to MM2, at least as it
is currently written. I have no dog in the fight wrt whether the changes
also land in MM1, but, assuming both KIPs land concurrently in 3.0, I don't
see why the two KIPs would be in conflict. Obvs, this KIP marks MM1 as
deprecated going forward, but I don't think that precludes a concurrent
improvement.

If KIP-712 were being proposed after 3.0, I'd agree with you.

I think the reality is that MM1 has been sort of unofficially deprecated
for a long time, so people are understandably disinterested in landing new
features there. But let's have that debate in the KIP-712 thread. I believe
we'd be having the same discussion there with or without KIP-720 passing.

Ryanne

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 2:07 PM Colin McCabe <cm...@apache.org> wrote:

> Thanks for bringing this up, Ismael.  I agree that we need to figure this
> out before we accept this KIP.
>
> If MM1 is deprecated, then that means we are telling users they need to
> migrate away from it as soon as they can.  I think that rules out adding
> big new features to MM1, unless those features relate towards migrating to
> MM2.  So we need to figure out if that's really what we want to do, or if
> we want to keep MM1 around for a while.  This is certainly relevant to the
> discussion in the KIP-712 thread -- right now, these KIPs contradict each
> other.
>
> It's also important that MM2 reaches feature parity with MM1 before
> deprecating MM1.  Or if we can't reach feature parity, we should explain
> why the unsupported features are not needed going forward.  Do we have a
> list of all the gaps?
>
> best,
> Colin
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, at 09:44, Ismael Juma wrote:
> > OK. :) Maybe something like:
> >
> > "We believe MirrorMaker 2 is an improvement over the original MirrorMaker
> > when it comes to reliability and functionality for the majority of use
> > cases. We intend to focus on MirrorMaker 2 for future development and
> hence
> > we propose deprecating MirrorMaker 2 for future removal."
> >
> > Is this accurate? How does it sound?
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:10 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, do you mind wording it for me, Ismael? Or do you mean I should just
> > > remove the "MM1 is still useful" part?
> > >
> > > Ryanne
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 11:01 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can we please add proper motivation? I'm -1 with the current
> motivation
> > > > even though I'm in favor of the change.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 8:46 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey y'all, looks like we've got the requisite votes for this to
> pass,
> > > and
> > > > > the various concerns wrt KIP-712 are now being discussed on that
> > > thread.
> > > > So
> > > > > I'm going to go ahead and close the vote here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the votes!
> > > > >
> > > > > Ryanne
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 11:26 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It does mean more than that. We don't remove or replace things in
> > > > Apache
> > > > > > Kafka without good reasons (since it's typically costly for
> users).
> > > And
> > > > > > once something is scheduled for removal, it's typically in
> > > maintenance
> > > > > mode
> > > > > > and only bug fixes are expected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 8:28 PM Ryanne Dolan <
> ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ismael, "deprecated" implies something is scheduled to be
> removed
> > > or
> > > > > > > replaced, but I don't think it implies anything more than that.
> > > > KIP-720
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > proposing to deprecate MM1 so it can eventually be removed.
> That's
> > > > all
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > particular KIP is proposing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 7:24 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks Tom, this is a good elaboration on what I meant.
> Also, if
> > > > it's
> > > > > > > > deprecated, then we should definitely not be adding features.
> > > I'm a
> > > > > > > puzzled
> > > > > > > > that we are saying that MM1 is useful, deserves additional
> > > > > development
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > should be deprecated - all at the same time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 9:20 AM Tom Bentley <
> tbentley@redhat.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Ryanne,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it
> > > > because
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet"
> and
> > > > "it's
> > > > > > > > > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case
> > > > properly".
> > > > > > > While
> > > > > > > > > the former is not a good reason to argue against
> deprecation,
> > > the
> > > > > > > latter
> > > > > > > > > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely
> clear
> > > to
> > > > me
> > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as
> MM1.
> > > > On
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're
> > > > saying
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use
> cases
> > > > > would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I
> > > think.
> > > > > OTOH
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused
> about
> > > > which
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > situation is.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2
> cannot
> > > > > replace?
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're
> > > > intentionally
> > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue
> for
> > > > > > > > deprecation
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's
> important
> > > > for
> > > > > > xyz"
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses.
> The
> > > > > > > motivation
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't
> much
> > > > > else
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > say,
> > > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <
> > > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't
> include
> > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker
> remains
> > > > > > useful,
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to
> > > > > officially
> > > > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why
> it's
> > > no
> > > > > > longer
> > > > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > > instead.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which
> > > proposes
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major
> > > release.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Colin McCabe <cm...@apache.org>]

Thanks for bringing this up, Ismael.  I agree that we need to figure this out before we accept this KIP.

If MM1 is deprecated, then that means we are telling users they need to migrate away from it as soon as they can.  I think that rules out adding big new features to MM1, unless those features relate towards migrating to MM2.  So we need to figure out if that's really what we want to do, or if we want to keep MM1 around for a while.  This is certainly relevant to the discussion in the KIP-712 thread -- right now, these KIPs contradict each other.

It's also important that MM2 reaches feature parity with MM1 before deprecating MM1.  Or if we can't reach feature parity, we should explain why the unsupported features are not needed going forward.  Do we have a list of all the gaps?

best,
Colin


On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, at 09:44, Ismael Juma wrote:
> OK. :) Maybe something like:
> 
> "We believe MirrorMaker 2 is an improvement over the original MirrorMaker
> when it comes to reliability and functionality for the majority of use
> cases. We intend to focus on MirrorMaker 2 for future development and hence
> we propose deprecating MirrorMaker 2 for future removal."
> 
> Is this accurate? How does it sound?
> 
> Ismael
> 
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:10 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Ah, do you mind wording it for me, Ismael? Or do you mean I should just
> > remove the "MM1 is still useful" part?
> >
> > Ryanne
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 11:01 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Can we please add proper motivation? I'm -1 with the current motivation
> > > even though I'm in favor of the change.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 8:46 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey y'all, looks like we've got the requisite votes for this to pass,
> > and
> > > > the various concerns wrt KIP-712 are now being discussed on that
> > thread.
> > > So
> > > > I'm going to go ahead and close the vote here.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the votes!
> > > >
> > > > Ryanne
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 11:26 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It does mean more than that. We don't remove or replace things in
> > > Apache
> > > > > Kafka without good reasons (since it's typically costly for users).
> > And
> > > > > once something is scheduled for removal, it's typically in
> > maintenance
> > > > mode
> > > > > and only bug fixes are expected.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ismael
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 8:28 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ismael, "deprecated" implies something is scheduled to be removed
> > or
> > > > > > replaced, but I don't think it implies anything more than that.
> > > KIP-720
> > > > > is
> > > > > > proposing to deprecate MM1 so it can eventually be removed. That's
> > > all
> > > > > this
> > > > > > particular KIP is proposing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 7:24 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks Tom, this is a good elaboration on what I meant. Also, if
> > > it's
> > > > > > > deprecated, then we should definitely not be adding features.
> > I'm a
> > > > > > puzzled
> > > > > > > that we are saying that MM1 is useful, deserves additional
> > > > development
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > should be deprecated - all at the same time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 9:20 AM Tom Bentley <tb...@redhat.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Ryanne,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it
> > > because
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet" and
> > > "it's
> > > > > > > > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case
> > > properly".
> > > > > > While
> > > > > > > > the former is not a good reason to argue against deprecation,
> > the
> > > > > > latter
> > > > > > > > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely clear
> > to
> > > me
> > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as MM1.
> > > On
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're
> > > saying
> > > > we
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use cases
> > > > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I
> > think.
> > > > OTOH
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused about
> > > which
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > situation is.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2 cannot
> > > > replace?
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're
> > > intentionally
> > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue for
> > > > > > > deprecation
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's important
> > > for
> > > > > xyz"
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses. The
> > > > > > motivation
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't much
> > > > else
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > say,
> > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <
> > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include
> > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker remains
> > > > > useful,
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to
> > > > officially
> > > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's
> > no
> > > > > longer
> > > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > instead.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which
> > proposes
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major
> > release.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>]

Thank you Ryanne. It's hopefully obvious, but I meant MirrorMaker 1 in the
following:

"we propose deprecating MirrorMaker 2 for future removal."

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 3:50 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ismael, that certainly works for me. I'll update the KIP. Thanks for
> raising the issue.
>
> Ryanne
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 11:45 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > OK. :) Maybe something like:
> >
> > "We believe MirrorMaker 2 is an improvement over the original MirrorMaker
> > when it comes to reliability and functionality for the majority of use
> > cases. We intend to focus on MirrorMaker 2 for future development and
> hence
> > we propose deprecating MirrorMaker 2 for future removal."
> >
> > Is this accurate? How does it sound?
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:10 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, do you mind wording it for me, Ismael? Or do you mean I should just
> > > remove the "MM1 is still useful" part?
> > >
> > > Ryanne
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 11:01 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can we please add proper motivation? I'm -1 with the current
> motivation
> > > > even though I'm in favor of the change.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 8:46 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey y'all, looks like we've got the requisite votes for this to
> pass,
> > > and
> > > > > the various concerns wrt KIP-712 are now being discussed on that
> > > thread.
> > > > So
> > > > > I'm going to go ahead and close the vote here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the votes!
> > > > >
> > > > > Ryanne
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 11:26 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It does mean more than that. We don't remove or replace things in
> > > > Apache
> > > > > > Kafka without good reasons (since it's typically costly for
> users).
> > > And
> > > > > > once something is scheduled for removal, it's typically in
> > > maintenance
> > > > > mode
> > > > > > and only bug fixes are expected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 8:28 PM Ryanne Dolan <
> ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ismael, "deprecated" implies something is scheduled to be
> removed
> > > or
> > > > > > > replaced, but I don't think it implies anything more than that.
> > > > KIP-720
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > proposing to deprecate MM1 so it can eventually be removed.
> > That's
> > > > all
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > particular KIP is proposing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 7:24 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks Tom, this is a good elaboration on what I meant. Also,
> > if
> > > > it's
> > > > > > > > deprecated, then we should definitely not be adding features.
> > > I'm a
> > > > > > > puzzled
> > > > > > > > that we are saying that MM1 is useful, deserves additional
> > > > > development
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > should be deprecated - all at the same time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 9:20 AM Tom Bentley <
> tbentley@redhat.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Ryanne,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it
> > > > because
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet"
> and
> > > > "it's
> > > > > > > > > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case
> > > > properly".
> > > > > > > While
> > > > > > > > > the former is not a good reason to argue against
> deprecation,
> > > the
> > > > > > > latter
> > > > > > > > > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely
> clear
> > > to
> > > > me
> > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as
> > MM1.
> > > > On
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're
> > > > saying
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use
> > cases
> > > > > would
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I
> > > think.
> > > > > OTOH
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused
> about
> > > > which
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > situation is.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2
> cannot
> > > > > replace?
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're
> > > > intentionally
> > > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue
> > for
> > > > > > > > deprecation
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's
> > important
> > > > for
> > > > > > xyz"
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses.
> The
> > > > > > > motivation
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't
> > much
> > > > > else
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > say,
> > > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <
> > > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't
> include
> > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker
> > remains
> > > > > > useful,
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to
> > > > > officially
> > > > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why
> it's
> > > no
> > > > > > longer
> > > > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > > instead.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which
> > > proposes
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major
> > > release.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>]

Ismael, that certainly works for me. I'll update the KIP. Thanks for
raising the issue.

Ryanne


On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 11:45 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:

> OK. :) Maybe something like:
>
> "We believe MirrorMaker 2 is an improvement over the original MirrorMaker
> when it comes to reliability and functionality for the majority of use
> cases. We intend to focus on MirrorMaker 2 for future development and hence
> we propose deprecating MirrorMaker 2 for future removal."
>
> Is this accurate? How does it sound?
>
> Ismael
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:10 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah, do you mind wording it for me, Ismael? Or do you mean I should just
> > remove the "MM1 is still useful" part?
> >
> > Ryanne
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 11:01 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Can we please add proper motivation? I'm -1 with the current motivation
> > > even though I'm in favor of the change.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 8:46 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey y'all, looks like we've got the requisite votes for this to pass,
> > and
> > > > the various concerns wrt KIP-712 are now being discussed on that
> > thread.
> > > So
> > > > I'm going to go ahead and close the vote here.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the votes!
> > > >
> > > > Ryanne
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 11:26 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It does mean more than that. We don't remove or replace things in
> > > Apache
> > > > > Kafka without good reasons (since it's typically costly for users).
> > And
> > > > > once something is scheduled for removal, it's typically in
> > maintenance
> > > > mode
> > > > > and only bug fixes are expected.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ismael
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 8:28 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ismael, "deprecated" implies something is scheduled to be removed
> > or
> > > > > > replaced, but I don't think it implies anything more than that.
> > > KIP-720
> > > > > is
> > > > > > proposing to deprecate MM1 so it can eventually be removed.
> That's
> > > all
> > > > > this
> > > > > > particular KIP is proposing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 7:24 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks Tom, this is a good elaboration on what I meant. Also,
> if
> > > it's
> > > > > > > deprecated, then we should definitely not be adding features.
> > I'm a
> > > > > > puzzled
> > > > > > > that we are saying that MM1 is useful, deserves additional
> > > > development
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > should be deprecated - all at the same time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 9:20 AM Tom Bentley <tbentley@redhat.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Ryanne,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it
> > > because
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet" and
> > > "it's
> > > > > > > > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case
> > > properly".
> > > > > > While
> > > > > > > > the former is not a good reason to argue against deprecation,
> > the
> > > > > > latter
> > > > > > > > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely clear
> > to
> > > me
> > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as
> MM1.
> > > On
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're
> > > saying
> > > > we
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use
> cases
> > > > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I
> > think.
> > > > OTOH
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused about
> > > which
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > situation is.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2 cannot
> > > > replace?
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're
> > > intentionally
> > > > > > doing
> > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue
> for
> > > > > > > deprecation
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's
> important
> > > for
> > > > > xyz"
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses. The
> > > > > > motivation
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't
> much
> > > > else
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > say,
> > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <
> > ismael@juma.me.uk
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include
> > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker
> remains
> > > > > useful,
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to
> > > > officially
> > > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's
> > no
> > > > > longer
> > > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > > instead.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which
> > proposes
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major
> > release.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>]

OK. :) Maybe something like:

"We believe MirrorMaker 2 is an improvement over the original MirrorMaker
when it comes to reliability and functionality for the majority of use
cases. We intend to focus on MirrorMaker 2 for future development and hence
we propose deprecating MirrorMaker 2 for future removal."

Is this accurate? How does it sound?

Ismael

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:10 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ah, do you mind wording it for me, Ismael? Or do you mean I should just
> remove the "MM1 is still useful" part?
>
> Ryanne
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 11:01 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > Can we please add proper motivation? I'm -1 with the current motivation
> > even though I'm in favor of the change.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 8:46 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey y'all, looks like we've got the requisite votes for this to pass,
> and
> > > the various concerns wrt KIP-712 are now being discussed on that
> thread.
> > So
> > > I'm going to go ahead and close the vote here.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the votes!
> > >
> > > Ryanne
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 11:26 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It does mean more than that. We don't remove or replace things in
> > Apache
> > > > Kafka without good reasons (since it's typically costly for users).
> And
> > > > once something is scheduled for removal, it's typically in
> maintenance
> > > mode
> > > > and only bug fixes are expected.
> > > >
> > > > Ismael
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 8:28 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ismael, "deprecated" implies something is scheduled to be removed
> or
> > > > > replaced, but I don't think it implies anything more than that.
> > KIP-720
> > > > is
> > > > > proposing to deprecate MM1 so it can eventually be removed. That's
> > all
> > > > this
> > > > > particular KIP is proposing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ryanne
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 7:24 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks Tom, this is a good elaboration on what I meant. Also, if
> > it's
> > > > > > deprecated, then we should definitely not be adding features.
> I'm a
> > > > > puzzled
> > > > > > that we are saying that MM1 is useful, deserves additional
> > > development
> > > > > and
> > > > > > should be deprecated - all at the same time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 9:20 AM Tom Bentley <tb...@redhat.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Ryanne,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it
> > because
> > > > we
> > > > > > > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet" and
> > "it's
> > > > > > > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case
> > properly".
> > > > > While
> > > > > > > the former is not a good reason to argue against deprecation,
> the
> > > > > latter
> > > > > > > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely clear
> to
> > me
> > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as MM1.
> > On
> > > > the
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're
> > saying
> > > we
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use cases
> > > would
> > > > be
> > > > > > > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I
> think.
> > > OTOH
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused about
> > which
> > > > the
> > > > > > > situation is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2 cannot
> > > replace?
> > > > > If
> > > > > > > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're
> > intentionally
> > > > > doing
> > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tom
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue for
> > > > > > deprecation
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's important
> > for
> > > > xyz"
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses. The
> > > > > motivation
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't much
> > > else
> > > > to
> > > > > > > say,
> > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <
> ismael@juma.me.uk
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include
> > > proper
> > > > > > > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker remains
> > > > useful,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to
> > > officially
> > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's
> no
> > > > longer
> > > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > > instead.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which
> proposes
> > > to
> > > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major
> release.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>]

Ah, do you mind wording it for me, Ismael? Or do you mean I should just
remove the "MM1 is still useful" part?

Ryanne

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 11:01 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:

> Can we please add proper motivation? I'm -1 with the current motivation
> even though I'm in favor of the change.
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 8:46 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey y'all, looks like we've got the requisite votes for this to pass, and
> > the various concerns wrt KIP-712 are now being discussed on that thread.
> So
> > I'm going to go ahead and close the vote here.
> >
> > Thanks for the votes!
> >
> > Ryanne
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 11:26 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > It does mean more than that. We don't remove or replace things in
> Apache
> > > Kafka without good reasons (since it's typically costly for users). And
> > > once something is scheduled for removal, it's typically in maintenance
> > mode
> > > and only bug fixes are expected.
> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 8:28 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ismael, "deprecated" implies something is scheduled to be removed or
> > > > replaced, but I don't think it implies anything more than that.
> KIP-720
> > > is
> > > > proposing to deprecate MM1 so it can eventually be removed. That's
> all
> > > this
> > > > particular KIP is proposing.
> > > >
> > > > Ryanne
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 7:24 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks Tom, this is a good elaboration on what I meant. Also, if
> it's
> > > > > deprecated, then we should definitely not be adding features. I'm a
> > > > puzzled
> > > > > that we are saying that MM1 is useful, deserves additional
> > development
> > > > and
> > > > > should be deprecated - all at the same time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ismael
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 9:20 AM Tom Bentley <tb...@redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Ryanne,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it
> because
> > > we
> > > > > > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet" and
> "it's
> > > > > > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case
> properly".
> > > > While
> > > > > > the former is not a good reason to argue against deprecation, the
> > > > latter
> > > > > > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely clear to
> me
> > > > > whether
> > > > > > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as MM1.
> On
> > > the
> > > > > one
> > > > > > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're
> saying
> > we
> > > > > have
> > > > > > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use cases
> > would
> > > be
> > > > > > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I think.
> > OTOH
> > > > the
> > > > > > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused about
> which
> > > the
> > > > > > situation is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2 cannot
> > replace?
> > > > If
> > > > > > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're
> intentionally
> > > > doing
> > > > > > that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <
> > ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue for
> > > > > deprecation
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's important
> for
> > > xyz"
> > > > > --
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses. The
> > > > motivation
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't much
> > else
> > > to
> > > > > > say,
> > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <ismael@juma.me.uk
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include
> > proper
> > > > > > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker remains
> > > useful,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to
> > officially
> > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's no
> > > longer
> > > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > > instead.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > > ryannedolan@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes
> > to
> > > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>]

Can we please add proper motivation? I'm -1 with the current motivation
even though I'm in favor of the change.

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 8:46 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey y'all, looks like we've got the requisite votes for this to pass, and
> the various concerns wrt KIP-712 are now being discussed on that thread. So
> I'm going to go ahead and close the vote here.
>
> Thanks for the votes!
>
> Ryanne
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 11:26 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > It does mean more than that. We don't remove or replace things in Apache
> > Kafka without good reasons (since it's typically costly for users). And
> > once something is scheduled for removal, it's typically in maintenance
> mode
> > and only bug fixes are expected.
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 8:28 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ismael, "deprecated" implies something is scheduled to be removed or
> > > replaced, but I don't think it implies anything more than that. KIP-720
> > is
> > > proposing to deprecate MM1 so it can eventually be removed. That's all
> > this
> > > particular KIP is proposing.
> > >
> > > Ryanne
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 7:24 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks Tom, this is a good elaboration on what I meant. Also, if it's
> > > > deprecated, then we should definitely not be adding features. I'm a
> > > puzzled
> > > > that we are saying that MM1 is useful, deserves additional
> development
> > > and
> > > > should be deprecated - all at the same time.
> > > >
> > > > Ismael
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 9:20 AM Tom Bentley <tb...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Ryanne,
> > > > >
> > > > > With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it because
> > we
> > > > > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet" and "it's
> > > > > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case properly".
> > > While
> > > > > the former is not a good reason to argue against deprecation, the
> > > latter
> > > > > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely clear to me
> > > > whether
> > > > > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as MM1. On
> > the
> > > > one
> > > > > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're saying
> we
> > > > have
> > > > > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use cases
> would
> > be
> > > > > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I think.
> OTOH
> > > the
> > > > > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused about which
> > the
> > > > > situation is.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2 cannot
> replace?
> > > If
> > > > > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're intentionally
> > > doing
> > > > > that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <
> ryannedolan@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue for
> > > > deprecation
> > > > > --
> > > > > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's important for
> > xyz"
> > > > --
> > > > > so
> > > > > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses. The
> > > motivation
> > > > > for
> > > > > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't much
> else
> > to
> > > > > say,
> > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include
> proper
> > > > > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker remains
> > useful,
> > > > we
> > > > > > want
> > > > > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to
> officially
> > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's no
> > longer
> > > > > > useful
> > > > > > > instead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <
> > > ryannedolan@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes
> to
> > > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>]

Hey y'all, looks like we've got the requisite votes for this to pass, and
the various concerns wrt KIP-712 are now being discussed on that thread. So
I'm going to go ahead and close the vote here.

Thanks for the votes!

Ryanne

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 11:26 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:

> It does mean more than that. We don't remove or replace things in Apache
> Kafka without good reasons (since it's typically costly for users). And
> once something is scheduled for removal, it's typically in maintenance mode
> and only bug fixes are expected.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 8:28 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ismael, "deprecated" implies something is scheduled to be removed or
> > replaced, but I don't think it implies anything more than that. KIP-720
> is
> > proposing to deprecate MM1 so it can eventually be removed. That's all
> this
> > particular KIP is proposing.
> >
> > Ryanne
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 7:24 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Tom, this is a good elaboration on what I meant. Also, if it's
> > > deprecated, then we should definitely not be adding features. I'm a
> > puzzled
> > > that we are saying that MM1 is useful, deserves additional development
> > and
> > > should be deprecated - all at the same time.
> > >
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 9:20 AM Tom Bentley <tb...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Ryanne,
> > > >
> > > > With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it because
> we
> > > > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet" and "it's
> > > > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case properly".
> > While
> > > > the former is not a good reason to argue against deprecation, the
> > latter
> > > > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely clear to me
> > > whether
> > > > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as MM1. On
> the
> > > one
> > > > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're saying we
> > > have
> > > > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use cases would
> be
> > > > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I think. OTOH
> > the
> > > > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused about which
> the
> > > > situation is.
> > > >
> > > > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2 cannot replace?
> > If
> > > > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're intentionally
> > doing
> > > > that.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue for
> > > deprecation
> > > > --
> > > > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's important for
> xyz"
> > > --
> > > > so
> > > > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses. The
> > motivation
> > > > for
> > > > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't much else
> to
> > > > say,
> > > > > IMO.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ryanne
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include proper
> > > > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker remains
> useful,
> > > we
> > > > > want
> > > > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to officially
> > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's no
> longer
> > > > > useful
> > > > > > instead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <
> > ryannedolan@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes to
> > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>]

It does mean more than that. We don't remove or replace things in Apache
Kafka without good reasons (since it's typically costly for users). And
once something is scheduled for removal, it's typically in maintenance mode
and only bug fixes are expected.

Ismael

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 8:28 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ismael, "deprecated" implies something is scheduled to be removed or
> replaced, but I don't think it implies anything more than that. KIP-720 is
> proposing to deprecate MM1 so it can eventually be removed. That's all this
> particular KIP is proposing.
>
> Ryanne
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 7:24 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Tom, this is a good elaboration on what I meant. Also, if it's
> > deprecated, then we should definitely not be adding features. I'm a
> puzzled
> > that we are saying that MM1 is useful, deserves additional development
> and
> > should be deprecated - all at the same time.
> >
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 9:20 AM Tom Bentley <tb...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ryanne,
> > >
> > > With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it because we
> > > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet" and "it's
> > > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case properly".
> While
> > > the former is not a good reason to argue against deprecation, the
> latter
> > > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely clear to me
> > whether
> > > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as MM1. On the
> > one
> > > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're saying we
> > have
> > > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use cases would be
> > > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I think. OTOH
> the
> > > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused about which the
> > > situation is.
> > >
> > > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2 cannot replace?
> If
> > > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're intentionally
> doing
> > > that.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue for
> > deprecation
> > > --
> > > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's important for xyz"
> > --
> > > so
> > > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses. The
> motivation
> > > for
> > > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't much else to
> > > say,
> > > > IMO.
> > > >
> > > > Ryanne
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include proper
> > > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker remains useful,
> > we
> > > > want
> > > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to officially
> > > > deprecate
> > > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's no longer
> > > > useful
> > > > > instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Ismael
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <
> ryannedolan@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes to
> > > > deprecate
> > > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>]

Ismael, "deprecated" implies something is scheduled to be removed or
replaced, but I don't think it implies anything more than that. KIP-720 is
proposing to deprecate MM1 so it can eventually be removed. That's all this
particular KIP is proposing.

Ryanne

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 7:24 PM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:

> Thanks Tom, this is a good elaboration on what I meant. Also, if it's
> deprecated, then we should definitely not be adding features. I'm a puzzled
> that we are saying that MM1 is useful, deserves additional development and
> should be deprecated - all at the same time.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 9:20 AM Tom Bentley <tb...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ryanne,
> >
> > With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it because we
> > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet" and "it's
> > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case properly". While
> > the former is not a good reason to argue against deprecation, the latter
> > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely clear to me
> whether
> > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as MM1. On the
> one
> > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're saying we
> have
> > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use cases would be
> > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I think. OTOH the
> > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused about which the
> > situation is.
> >
> > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2 cannot replace? If
> > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're intentionally doing
> > that.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue for
> deprecation
> > --
> > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's important for xyz"
> --
> > so
> > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses. The motivation
> > for
> > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't much else to
> > say,
> > > IMO.
> > >
> > > Ryanne
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include proper
> > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker remains useful,
> we
> > > want
> > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to officially
> > > deprecate
> > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's no longer
> > > useful
> > > > instead.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Ismael
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedolan@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes to
> > > deprecate
> > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > Ryanne
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>]

Thanks Tom, this is a good elaboration on what I meant. Also, if it's
deprecated, then we should definitely not be adding features. I'm a puzzled
that we are saying that MM1 is useful, deserves additional development and
should be deprecated - all at the same time.

Ismael

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 9:20 AM Tom Bentley <tb...@redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Ryanne,
>
> With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it because we
> can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet" and "it's
> important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case properly". While
> the former is not a good reason to argue against deprecation, the latter
> might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely clear to me whether
> you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as MM1. On the one
> hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're saying we have
> MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use cases would be
> Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I think. OTOH the
> KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused about which the
> situation is.
>
> Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2 cannot replace? If
> so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're intentionally doing
> that.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Tom
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue for deprecation
> --
> > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's important for xyz" --
> so
> > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses. The motivation
> for
> > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't much else to
> say,
> > IMO.
> >
> > Ryanne
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include proper
> > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker remains useful, we
> > want
> > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to officially
> > deprecate
> > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's no longer
> > useful
> > > instead.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes to
> > deprecate
> > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Ryanne
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>]

The timing is unfortunate, but should not be a roadblock. Both KIPs are
already worded to leave room for the other. I think this is a non-issue.

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 2:49 PM Ning Zhang <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> IMHO - I think there is no too much doubt on the effectiveness of KIP-712
> and KIP-720, the tricky part may be the timing and the ordering of
> implementing KIP-712 and KIP-720 (if we do not want to execute both KIP in
> parallel).
>
> If it makes more sense to execute them in sequence, here may be a path:
> assuming KIP-712 should have been battle-tested in the real-world industry
> for years, I guess it may not take a long time to get KIP-712 in together
> with an explicit statement that KIP-712 can be applied to MM2. After that,
> port KIP-712 to MM2 immediately, followed up with executing KIP-720 and a
> migration SOP from MM1 to MM2.
>
> happy to hear other thoughts.
>
> On 2021/03/26 17:45:06, Tom Bentley <tb...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi Ryanne,
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification. I agree that inertia is not a good enough
> > reason to keep MM1 around.
> >
> > It is a bit weird to be deprecating MM1 in one KIP but proposing to
> develop
> > it further in another, and that development, if it happened, would
> > undermine the argument that MM2 does everything that MM1 does. We could
> end
> > up giving people a perverse incentive to stick with, or even adopt, MM1.
> > Doing both these KIPs would be a confusing thing to try to communicate to
> > users.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 5:12 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Tom, to clarify, MM2 can definitely replace MM1 in all use cases I've
> > > encountered or can imagine, and many orgs have switched already, e.g.
> using
> > > IdentityReplicationPolicy aka LegacyReplicationPolicy. Moreover, the
> > > argument of whether to extend or replace MM1 was already decided in
> > > KIP-382. That said, I know that many orgs use MM1 and will probably
> > > continue to do so for a while, and some may never switch. I don't think
> > > that's an argument for keeping MM1 around upstream long-term, and I
> don't
> > > think anyone is making that argument, so far. I guess I could remove
> the
> > > phrase "MM1 remains useful" but I specifically wanted to leave room for
> > > KIP-712, which cites MM1 as motivation. (There are definitely plans to
> > > bring the goodness of KIP-712 to MM2, assuming it passes, and I don't
> want
> > > KIP-720 to jeopardize that.)
> > >
> > > Ryanne
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 11:20 AM Tom Bentley <tb...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Ryanne,
> > > >
> > > > With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it because
> we
> > > > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet" and "it's
> > > > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case properly".
> While
> > > > the former is not a good reason to argue against deprecation, the
> latter
> > > > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely clear to me
> > > whether
> > > > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as MM1. On
> the
> > > one
> > > > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're saying we
> > > have
> > > > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use cases would
> be
> > > > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I think.
> OTOH the
> > > > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused about which
> the
> > > > situation is.
> > > >
> > > > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2 cannot
> replace? If
> > > > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're intentionally
> doing
> > > > that.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue for
> > > deprecation
> > > > --
> > > > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's important for
> xyz"
> > > --
> > > > so
> > > > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses. The
> motivation
> > > > for
> > > > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't much else
> to
> > > > say,
> > > > > IMO.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ryanne
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include proper
> > > > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker remains
> useful,
> > > we
> > > > > want
> > > > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to officially
> > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's no
> longer
> > > > > useful
> > > > > > instead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Ismael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <
> ryannedolan@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes to
> > > > > deprecate
> > > > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Ning Zhang <ni...@gmail.com>]

IMHO - I think there is no too much doubt on the effectiveness of KIP-712 and KIP-720, the tricky part may be the timing and the ordering of implementing KIP-712 and KIP-720 (if we do not want to execute both KIP in parallel).

If it makes more sense to execute them in sequence, here may be a path: assuming KIP-712 should have been battle-tested in the real-world industry for years, I guess it may not take a long time to get KIP-712 in together with an explicit statement that KIP-712 can be applied to MM2. After that, port KIP-712 to MM2 immediately, followed up with executing KIP-720 and a migration SOP from MM1 to MM2.

happy to hear other thoughts.

On 2021/03/26 17:45:06, Tom Bentley <tb...@redhat.com> wrote: 
> Hi Ryanne,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. I agree that inertia is not a good enough
> reason to keep MM1 around.
> 
> It is a bit weird to be deprecating MM1 in one KIP but proposing to develop
> it further in another, and that development, if it happened, would
> undermine the argument that MM2 does everything that MM1 does. We could end
> up giving people a perverse incentive to stick with, or even adopt, MM1.
> Doing both these KIPs would be a confusing thing to try to communicate to
> users.
> 
> Tom
> 
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 5:12 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Tom, to clarify, MM2 can definitely replace MM1 in all use cases I've
> > encountered or can imagine, and many orgs have switched already, e.g. using
> > IdentityReplicationPolicy aka LegacyReplicationPolicy. Moreover, the
> > argument of whether to extend or replace MM1 was already decided in
> > KIP-382. That said, I know that many orgs use MM1 and will probably
> > continue to do so for a while, and some may never switch. I don't think
> > that's an argument for keeping MM1 around upstream long-term, and I don't
> > think anyone is making that argument, so far. I guess I could remove the
> > phrase "MM1 remains useful" but I specifically wanted to leave room for
> > KIP-712, which cites MM1 as motivation. (There are definitely plans to
> > bring the goodness of KIP-712 to MM2, assuming it passes, and I don't want
> > KIP-720 to jeopardize that.)
> >
> > Ryanne
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 11:20 AM Tom Bentley <tb...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ryanne,
> > >
> > > With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it because we
> > > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet" and "it's
> > > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case properly". While
> > > the former is not a good reason to argue against deprecation, the latter
> > > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely clear to me
> > whether
> > > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as MM1. On the
> > one
> > > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're saying we
> > have
> > > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use cases would be
> > > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I think. OTOH the
> > > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused about which the
> > > situation is.
> > >
> > > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2 cannot replace? If
> > > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're intentionally doing
> > > that.
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue for
> > deprecation
> > > --
> > > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's important for xyz"
> > --
> > > so
> > > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses. The motivation
> > > for
> > > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't much else to
> > > say,
> > > > IMO.
> > > >
> > > > Ryanne
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include proper
> > > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker remains useful,
> > we
> > > > want
> > > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to officially
> > > > deprecate
> > > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's no longer
> > > > useful
> > > > > instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Ismael
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedolan@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes to
> > > > deprecate
> > > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > Ryanne
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Tom Bentley <tb...@redhat.com>]

Hi Ryanne,

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that inertia is not a good enough
reason to keep MM1 around.

It is a bit weird to be deprecating MM1 in one KIP but proposing to develop
it further in another, and that development, if it happened, would
undermine the argument that MM2 does everything that MM1 does. We could end
up giving people a perverse incentive to stick with, or even adopt, MM1.
Doing both these KIPs would be a confusing thing to try to communicate to
users.

Tom

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 5:12 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Tom, to clarify, MM2 can definitely replace MM1 in all use cases I've
> encountered or can imagine, and many orgs have switched already, e.g. using
> IdentityReplicationPolicy aka LegacyReplicationPolicy. Moreover, the
> argument of whether to extend or replace MM1 was already decided in
> KIP-382. That said, I know that many orgs use MM1 and will probably
> continue to do so for a while, and some may never switch. I don't think
> that's an argument for keeping MM1 around upstream long-term, and I don't
> think anyone is making that argument, so far. I guess I could remove the
> phrase "MM1 remains useful" but I specifically wanted to leave room for
> KIP-712, which cites MM1 as motivation. (There are definitely plans to
> bring the goodness of KIP-712 to MM2, assuming it passes, and I don't want
> KIP-720 to jeopardize that.)
>
> Ryanne
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 11:20 AM Tom Bentley <tb...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ryanne,
> >
> > With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it because we
> > can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet" and "it's
> > important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case properly". While
> > the former is not a good reason to argue against deprecation, the latter
> > might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely clear to me
> whether
> > you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as MM1. On the
> one
> > hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're saying we
> have
> > MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use cases would be
> > Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I think. OTOH the
> > KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused about which the
> > situation is.
> >
> > Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2 cannot replace? If
> > so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're intentionally doing
> > that.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue for
> deprecation
> > --
> > > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's important for xyz"
> --
> > so
> > > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses. The motivation
> > for
> > > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't much else to
> > say,
> > > IMO.
> > >
> > > Ryanne
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include proper
> > > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker remains useful,
> we
> > > want
> > > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to officially
> > > deprecate
> > > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's no longer
> > > useful
> > > > instead.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Ismael
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <ryannedolan@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes to
> > > deprecate
> > > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > Ryanne
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>]

Tom, to clarify, MM2 can definitely replace MM1 in all use cases I've
encountered or can imagine, and many orgs have switched already, e.g. using
IdentityReplicationPolicy aka LegacyReplicationPolicy. Moreover, the
argument of whether to extend or replace MM1 was already decided in
KIP-382. That said, I know that many orgs use MM1 and will probably
continue to do so for a while, and some may never switch. I don't think
that's an argument for keeping MM1 around upstream long-term, and I don't
think anyone is making that argument, so far. I guess I could remove the
phrase "MM1 remains useful" but I specifically wanted to leave room for
KIP-712, which cites MM1 as motivation. (There are definitely plans to
bring the goodness of KIP-712 to MM2, assuming it passes, and I don't want
KIP-720 to jeopardize that.)

Ryanne

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 11:20 AM Tom Bentley <tb...@redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Ryanne,
>
> With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it because we
> can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet" and "it's
> important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case properly". While
> the former is not a good reason to argue against deprecation, the latter
> might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely clear to me whether
> you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as MM1. On the one
> hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're saying we have
> MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use cases would be
> Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I think. OTOH the
> KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused about which the
> situation is.
>
> Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2 cannot replace? If
> so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're intentionally doing
> that.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Tom
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue for deprecation
> --
> > someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's important for xyz" --
> so
> > I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses. The motivation
> for
> > deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't much else to
> say,
> > IMO.
> >
> > Ryanne
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include proper
> > > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker remains useful, we
> > want
> > > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to officially
> > deprecate
> > > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's no longer
> > useful
> > > instead.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ismael
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes to
> > deprecate
> > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Ryanne
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Tom Bentley <tb...@redhat.com>]

Hi Ryanne,

With respect, there's a difference between "we still use it because we
can't be bothered to switch to MM2, or just haven't yet" and "it's
important for xyz because MM2 doesn't serve our use case properly". While
the former is not a good reason to argue against deprecation, the latter
might be, depending on the details. It isn't completely clear to me whether
you're asserting that MM2 covers all the same use cases as MM1. On the one
hand you don't want to make claims, but on the other you're saying we have
MM2 now. An assertion that MM2 addressed all the MM1 use cases would be
Ismael's explanation about why MM1 is no longer useful, I think. OTOH the
KIP says it is still useful. So personally I'm confused about which the
situation is.

Are we deprecating something which for some users MM2 cannot replace? If
so, I think the KIP should explain clearly why we're intentionally doing
that.

Kind regards,

Tom

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 3:22 PM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue for deprecation --
> someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's important for xyz" -- so
> I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses. The motivation for
> deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't much else to say,
> IMO.
>
> Ryanne
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include proper
> > motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker remains useful, we
> want
> > to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to officially
> deprecate
> > this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's no longer
> useful
> > instead.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ismael
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes to
> deprecate
> > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Ryanne
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>]

Ismael, I think it is very difficult in general to argue for deprecation --
someone will always say "we still use it" or "it's important for xyz" -- so
I don't want to make claims that prompt such responses. The motivation for
deprecating MM1 is that we now have MM2, and there isn't much else to say,
IMO.

Ryanne

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:04 AM Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk> wrote:

> I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include proper
> motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker remains useful, we want
> to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to officially deprecate
> this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's no longer useful
> instead.
>
> Thanks,
> Ismael
>
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes to deprecate
> > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.
> >
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Ryanne
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Ismael Juma <is...@juma.me.uk>]

I am in favor of this change, but the KIP doesn't include proper
motivation. It says "While the original MirrorMaker remains useful, we want
to take advantage of the upcoming 3.0 major release to officially deprecate
this legacy code". I would hope we would explain why it's no longer useful
instead.

Thanks,
Ismael

On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes to deprecate
> the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
>
> Thanks!
> Ryanne
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Mickael Maison <mi...@gmail.com>]

+1 (binding)
Thanks Ryanne

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:18 AM David Jacot
<dj...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Thanks for the KIP!
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:29 AM Manikumar <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 9:42 AM Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Woot!
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes to
> > deprecate
> > > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Ryanne
> > > >
> > >
> >

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[David Jacot <dj...@confluent.io.INVALID>]

+1 (binding)

Thanks for the KIP!

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:29 AM Manikumar <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 (binding)
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 9:42 AM Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Woot!
> > +1
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes to
> deprecate
> > > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Ryanne
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Manikumar <ma...@gmail.com>]

+1 (binding)



On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 9:42 AM Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io.invalid>
wrote:

> Woot!
> +1
>
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes to deprecate
> > the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.
> >
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Ryanne
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] KIP-720 Deprecate MirrorMaker v1

[Gwen Shapira <gw...@confluent.io.INVALID>]

Woot!
+1

On Sat, Mar 20, 2021, 10:41 AM Ryanne Dolan <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey y'all, I'm starting the vote on KIP-720, which proposes to deprecate
> the original MirrorMaker in the upcoming 3.0 major release.
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-720%3A+Deprecate+MirrorMaker+v1
>
> Thanks!
> Ryanne
>