Thanks for volunteering, Philipp! I think that this is a good candidate. This might not be the easiest to handle since it might require a PIP [1]. I'm currently doubting whether this needs a PIP or not. The benefit of making a PIP is that this decision gets properly documented. The key handling for Key_Shared might also contain client side logic as it can be seen in the Pulsar Java client. It would be useful that all clients consistently adopt this change after it has been implemented. I hope that others share their opinion about this too.
As the next step you could already create the Pull Request to make the change. In the issue description you could reference the URL of this mailling list discussion [2]. We shouldn't merge the PR until there's a resolution for the matter about the PIP. Looking forward to your contributions! -Lari 1 - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/tree/master/pip#when-is-a-pip-required 2 - https://lists.apache.org/thread/fyk0z2fsvv1fqp5dpdlzhqb7cd9qjr4j On 2024/08/23 11:44:24 Philipp D wrote: > Hi all, > > I am interested in contributing to Pulsar. I encountered the GitHub > issue [feat] > Replace the default NONE_KEY in Key_Shared implementation with producer > name and producer sequence number > <https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/23212> and thought it might be a > good candidate for me to start with. > What do you think? What would be the next steps? > > Best regards, > Philipp >
