Hi Gwen,
At this level, that's probably right, so sounds good (at an implementor's
level, I think it's more subtle).
Ismael
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gwen Shapira wrote:
> All replicas are assigned replicas. Calling it AssignedReplicasCount
> makes it sound like we
All replicas are assigned replicas. Calling it AssignedReplicasCount
makes it sound like we have non-assigned replicas that we are also
counting somewhere.
(Guess who requested the change...)
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Ismael Juma wrote:
> Hi Xavier,
>
> Can you please
Hi Xavier,
Can you please share the reasoning for the name change? Good to record such
things for posterity. :)
Ismael
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Xavier Léauté wrote:
> FYI, Based on internal feedback I renamed AssignedReplicasCount to simply
> be called
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Xavier Léauté wrote:
> FYI, Based on internal feedback I renamed AssignedReplicasCount to simply
> be called ReplicasCount.
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 7:56 PM Neha Narkhede wrote:
>
> > This seems
FYI, Based on internal feedback I renamed AssignedReplicasCount to simply
be called ReplicasCount.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 7:56 PM Neha Narkhede wrote:
> This seems useful, +1
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:39 AM Ismael Juma wrote:
>
> > Hi Xavier,
> >
> >
This seems useful, +1
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 5:39 AM Ismael Juma wrote:
> Hi Xavier,
>
> Thanks for the KIP. Sounds good to me.
>
> Ismael
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Xavier Léauté
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I created KIP-96 to propose per
Hi Xavier,
Thanks for the KIP. Sounds good to me.
Ismael
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Xavier Léauté wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I created KIP-96 to propose per partition in-sync / assigned replica
> metrics. Should be straightforward, but submitting it for proposal since we
>