Logstash 9.2.0 release notes updates #18360
Conversation
🤖 GitHub commentsExpand to view the GitHub comments
Just comment with:
|
🔍 Preview links for changed docs |
| ### Features and enhancements [logstash-9.2.0-features-enhancements] | ||
|
|
||
| #### Highlights | ||
| #### Persistent queue (PQ} compression [logstash-9.2.0-pq-compression] | ||
|
|
||
| ##### Logstash 9.2 introduces PQ compression |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Three heading levels with no content inbetween can signal a structural issue. I restructured the content to [hopefully] achieve the emphasis you were going for, @robbavey, but eliminate a heading level. LMKWYT
docs/release-notes/known-issues.md
Outdated
| **Workaround** | ||
|
|
||
| ??? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a workaround we can recommend?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The main thing is to not set the decode_size_limit_bytes manually, there is almost never a reason to, and I suspect there are very few people who have
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I dont think so. This is mainly a slight change in behavior that we are pointing out. In most cases if users were configuring this limit and it was raising errors, it will continue to raise errors but in a slightly different point in the process. TLDR is that without a specific use case there is not really a generalized "workaround" to advertise.
robbavey
left a comment
robbavey
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Structural changes are a big improvement. Thank you!
docs/release-notes/known-issues.md
Outdated
| **Workaround** | ||
|
|
||
| ??? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The main thing is to not set the decode_size_limit_bytes manually, there is almost never a reason to, and I suspect there are very few people who have
| ### Features and enhancements [logstash-9.2.0-features-enhancements] | ||
|
|
||
| #### Highlights | ||
| #### Persistent queue (PQ} compression [logstash-9.2.0-pq-compression] | ||
|
|
||
| ##### Logstash 9.2 introduces PQ compression |
| ::::{dropdown} BufferedTokenizer may silently drop data when oversize input has no delimiters | ||
|
|
||
| None at this time | ||
| Applies to: {{ls}} 9.2.0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we move Applies to an upper level for better visibility?
Reader figures out the version when actually toggles the dropdown, but I am okay if this is a standard.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
|
|
||
| **BufferedTokenizer may silently drop data when oversize input has no delimiters** | ||
|
|
||
| Applies to: {{ls}} 9.2.0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, I tried something different based on the ES format. I did keep the Applies to: {{ls}} 9.2.0 line even though it appears redundant with the 9.2.0 heading. Thinking that we can update the line with future versions affected, or the version in which it was resolved. LMKWYT
mashhurs
left a comment
mashhurs
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is just awesome!
Really like it.
Thank you alot Karen.
|
Hmmmm, I wonder why the |
|
@Mergifyio backport 9.2 |
✅ Backports have been created
|
(cherry picked from commit 163bc72)
Co-authored-by: Karen Metts <[email protected]>
4 participants
Updates Logstash 9.2.0 release notes to relocate known issue to proper location and make some formatting changes
Related: elastic/docs-content#3448