Yes. Thank you.
> On Jun 20, 2020, at 12:20 AM, Gwen Shapira wrote:
>
> Thank you so much for this initiative. Small change, but it makes our
> community more inclusive.
>
> Gwen
>
>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, 6:02 PM Xavier Léauté wrote:
>>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> There are a number of places i
Thanks Xavier!
I’m +1 on this idea, and I’m glad this is the extent of what needs to be
changed. I recall when I joined the project being pleased at the lack of common
offensive terminology. I hadn’t considered whitelist/blacklist, but I can see
the argument.
Allowlist/blocklist are kind of a
Xavier, I'm dismayed to see some of these instances are my fault. Fully
support your plan.
John, I had the same thought -- "list" is extraneous here. In the case of
"topics.whitelist" we already have precedent to just use "topics".
Ryanne
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 12:43 PM John Roesler wrote:
> Th
As I understand it, the consumer can only read "committed" messages - which
I believe, if we look at internals of it, committed messages are nothing
but messages which are upto the high watermark.
*The high watermark is the offset of the last message that was successfully
copied to all of the log’s
Thanks D C. Thanks a lot . That is quite a detailed explanation.
If I understand correctly, ( ignoring the case where producers
create transactions) - since the replica is down and never comes , the high
watermark CANNOT advance and the consumer CAN NOT read the messages which
were sent after the r
