Hey Dong, Yes, that was the intent. I fixed the proposal. Thanks for reviewing!
-Jason On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Jason, > > Thanks for the KIP. The KIP looks good overall. > > I have one minor question. The KIP says that "If the producer sees either > the FENCED_LEADER_EPOCH or the UNKNOWN_LEADER_EPOCH in the response from > the broker, it will refresh metadata and retry". Given that > UNKNOWN_LEADER_EPOCH > is returned to producer iff producer's leaderEpoch > broker's leaderEpoch, > it probably means the producer's metadata is newer than broker's leadership > information. In this case, does producer needs to refresh metadata? > > > Thanks, > Dong > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > Hey All, > > > > I didn't expect many comments here. This is mostly for consistency and to > > improve debugging now that we have leader epoch in the metadata. I'll go > > ahead and start a vote shortly. > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 2:10 PM, Jason Gustafson <ja...@confluent.io> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I've added a short KIP to add leader epoch validation to the produce > API. > > > This is a follow-up to KIP-320, which added similar protection to the > > > consumer APIs. Take a look and let me know what you think. > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > 359%3A+Verify+leader+epoch+in+produce+requests > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jason > > > > > >
