[GitHub] [rocketmq] humkum commented on issue #5536: [Static Topic] Is it necessary to consider the compatible while upgrade namesrv and broker?

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

humkum commented on issue #5536:
URL: https://github.com/apache/rocketmq/issues/5536#issuecomment-1318039550

   > We should define an upgrade blueprint, allowing clusters of previous versions to update without disruption.
   > 
   > A viable way is to upgrade name servers first, which provides capabilities of serving both broker versions; After all name server nodes are updated, then start to upgrade brokers.
   > 
   > Name servers, thus, have to be able to process the transitional states: 1) all brokers miss placement configs; 2) partial brokers miss placement configs; 3) all brokers have placement configs.
   
   That's right！I didn't find the compatible operation in name server in current version, is there some logic I missed, or these are just missing features. If name server did not have these compatible ability, should we support this?


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@rocketmq.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org