Thanks Apurva - yes that's one of those funny english phrases which are often read one way, but are really quite ambiguous. I have reworded.
Thanks for pointing this one out. Appreciated. B On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 at 23:49, Apurva Mehta <apu...@confluent.io> wrote: Hi Ben, Thanks for the KIP. It is very well written and explains the problem and solution very nicely. I have one --very minor-- question. In the 'steps' section, you write: > 4.6 The follower starts fetching from the leader from its log end offset. The use of 'its' is a bit ambiguous here. I presume that you mean that the follower fetches from the log end offset of the follower (and not the leader). Might be worth clarifying whose log end offset is referred to here. While the perceived ambiguity may be put down to my english skills, I still feet it would be better to leave no room for doubt. Thanks, Apurva On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 4:30 AM, Ben Stopford <b...@confluent.io> wrote: > Hi All > > Please find the below KIP which describes a proposed solution to a couple > of issues that have been observed with the replication protocol. > > In short, the proposal replaces the use of the High Watermark, for > follower log trunctation, with an alternate Generation Marker. This > uniquely defines which leader messages were acknowledged by. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > 101+-+Alter+Replication+Protocol+to+use+Leader+ > Generation+rather+than+High+Watermark+for+Truncation < > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > 101+-+Alter+Replication+Protocol+to+use+Leader+ > Generation+rather+than+High+Watermark+for+Truncation> > > All comments and suggestions greatly appreciated. > > Ben Stopford > Confluent, http://www.confluent.io <http://www.confluent.io/> > >
