-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/20989/#review42107
-----------------------------------------------------------



docs/learn/documentation/0.7.0/jobs/reprocessing.md
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/20989/#comment75851>

    I think it would be more clear here to say "From time to time you may want 
to deploy a new version of your Samza job that computes results differently. 
Perhaps you fixed a bug or introduced a new feature.



docs/learn/documentation/0.7.0/jobs/reprocessing.md
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/20989/#comment75852>

    Worth mentioning that you can increase your container count to make this as 
fast as you like.



docs/learn/documentation/0.7.0/jobs/reprocessing.md
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/20989/#comment75853>

    I would actually argue for documenting the two topic solution: original job 
publishes to A and new job publishes to A'. This solution is generally correct. 
I think you can then mention making A = A' as a special case if the consumers 
can handle that.


- Jay Kreps


On May 1, 2014, 10:14 p.m., Martin Kleppmann wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/20989/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 1, 2014, 10:14 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for samza.
> 
> 
> Repository: samza
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> SAMZA-252: Add page on reprocessing to the docs.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   docs/_layouts/default.html 0a5ad9f63110c68424360773b9fcd005e4a059a9 
>   docs/learn/documentation/0.7.0/index.html 
> 7806baf71bee61e5316d5bc627fee219012d3375 
>   docs/learn/documentation/0.7.0/jobs/logging.md 
> 6bb6bf4b3630165159acc47e4cfb8e1afe6659cb 
>   docs/learn/documentation/0.7.0/jobs/reprocessing.md PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/20989/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Martin Kleppmann
> 
>

Reply via email to