Thank you, Guozhag and Bruno, for reviewing the KIP and reading the whole discussion thread. I appreciate your help:) The KIP is now corrected and updated.
Cheers, Alieh On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:43 AM Bruno Cadonna <cado...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks Alieh, > > I am +1 (binding). > > However, although we agreed on not specifying an order of the results by > default, there is still the following sentence in the KIP: > > "The order of the returned records is by default ascending by timestamp. > The method withDescendingTimestamps() can reverse the order. Btw, > withAscendingTimestamps() method can be used for code readability purpose. > " > > Could you please change it and also fix what Guozhang commented? > > Best, > Bruno > > On 11/19/23 2:12 AM, Guozhang Wang wrote: > > Thanks Alieh, > > > > I read through the wiki page and the DISCUSS thread, all LGTM except a > > minor thing in javadoc: > > > > "The query returns the records with a global ascending order of keys. > > The records with the same key are ordered based on their insertion > > timestamp in ascending order. Both the global and partial ordering are > > modifiable with the corresponding methods defined for the class." > > > > Since this KIP is only for a single key, there's no key ordering but > > only timestamp ordering right? Maybe the javadoc can be updated > > accordingly. > > > > Otherwise, LGTM. > > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 2:36 AM Alieh Saeedi > > <asae...@confluent.io.invalid> wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> Following my recent message in the discussion thread, I am opening the > >> voting for KIP-968. Thanks for your votes in advance. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Alieh >
