apache
KAFKA-10844: groupBy without shuffling
A label of 'needs-attention' was automatically added to this PR in order to raise the
attention of the committers. Once this issue has been triaged, the triage label
should be removed to prevent this automation from happening again.
![github-actions[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
A label of 'needs-attention' was automatically added to this PR in order to raise the
attention of the committers. Once this issue has been triaged, the triage label
should be removed to prevent this automation from happening again.
A label of 'needs-attention' was automatically added to this PR in order to raise the
attention of the committers. Once this issue has been triaged, the triage label
should be removed to prevent this automation from happening again.
@mjsax, I would like to suggest that we adopt "skip repartitioning" instead of "mark as partitioned". It seems to me to be more consistent with the rest of the KStream API methods and its functional programming style, because "skip repartitioning" is actually the action that is performed, while "mark as partitioned" seems to me to be more like a condition to be checked ("oh, okay, since this is marked as partitioned, I will skip repartitioning") than the action itself. What do you think?
Also, I would like to know if you have other test scenarios in mind.
As with previous PRs, I have added a draft Markdown before writing the HTML docs.
Thanks in advance!
A label of 'needs-attention' was automatically added to this PR in order to raise the
attention of the committers. Once this issue has been triaged, the triage label
should be removed to prevent this automation from happening again.
A label of 'needs-attention' was automatically added to this PR in order to raise the
attention of the committers. Once this issue has been triaged, the triage label
should be removed to prevent this automation from happening again.
Hey @fonsdant, are still planning to work on this? Just checking.
Hi Lucas! First of all, thanks for the review! Sorry for the delayed response. Yes, I would like to continue working on this. Since it's been a while, I'll recap what I've already done in order to address your points. Thanks again! 😃
This PR is being marked as stale since it has not had any activity in 90 days. If you would like to keep this PR alive, please leave a comment asking for a review. If the PR has merge conflicts, update it with the latest from the base branch.
If you are having difficulty finding a reviewer, please reach out on the [mailing list](https://kafka.apache.org/contact).
If this PR is no longer valid or desired, please feel free to close it. If no activity occurs in the next 30 days, it will be automatically closed.
This PR has been closed since it has not had any activity in 120 days. If you feel like this was a mistake, or you would like to continue working on it, please feel free to re-open the PR and ask for a review.