Skip to content

Docs: Clarify index downgrade limitations in snapshot compatibility matrix - #7615

Open
jiwan67 wants to merge 1 commit into
elastic:mainfrom
jiwan67:patch-2
Open

Docs: Clarify index downgrade limitations in snapshot compatibility matrix#7615
jiwan67 wants to merge 1 commit into
elastic:mainfrom
jiwan67:patch-2

Conversation

@jiwan67

@jiwan67 jiwan67 commented Jul 29, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary

This PR resolves a logical contradiction in the Snapshot Version Compatibility matrix in the snapshot-and-restore.md documentation.

Issue Details

The text below the compatibility table explicitly states:

"You can’t restore an index to an earlier version of Elasticsearch. For example, you can’t restore an index created in 8.18.0 to a cluster running 8.15.0."

However, because minor versions are grouped together in the table (e.g., 8.0-8.19), the in the matrix technically implies that an 8.19 index could be restored to an 8.0 cluster, which contradicts the rule.

Changes

  • Added a new footnote (^3^) to the 8.0-8.19 row.
  • Provided a footnote description explicitly stating that restoring to an earlier minor version within the same major version is not supported.

This ensures the table remains compact while preventing user confusion regarding minor version downgrades.

…atrix

## Summary
This PR resolves a logical contradiction in the Snapshot Version Compatibility matrix in the `snapshot-and-restore.md` documentation.

## Issue Details
The text below the compatibility table explicitly states:
> "You can’t restore an index to an earlier version of Elasticsearch. For example, you can’t restore an index created in 8.18.0 to a cluster running 8.15.0."

However, because minor versions are grouped together in the table (e.g., `8.0-8.19`), the `✅` in the matrix technically implies that an 8.19 index could be restored to an 8.0 cluster, which contradicts the rule. 

## Changes
- Added a new footnote (`^3^`) to the `8.0-8.19` row.
- Provided a footnote description explicitly stating that restoring to an earlier minor version within the same major version is not supported.

This ensures the table remains compact while preventing user confusion regarding minor version downgrades.
@jiwan67
jiwan67 requested a review from a team as a code owner July 29, 2026 05:25
@cla-checker-service

Copy link
Copy Markdown

❌ Author of the following commits did not sign a Contributor Agreement:
9886e78

Please, read and sign the above mentioned agreement if you want to contribute to this project

@eedugon

eedugon commented Jul 29, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jiwan67 , the diff of the PR looks like a full file rewrite because the line endings were converted to CRLF. Could you normalize the file back to LF (as on main), then commit and push again?

Then we can review the footnote update. I agree with the contradiction you've shared but I'd suggest something different.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants