Thanks Michael for taking the fix into branch 2.7!

The Bookkeeper 4.13.0 is a major release so I would suggest releasing it
with
 Pulsar 2.8.0. And it's been a long time since we released the 2.7.0 so we
can
 release Pulsar 2.8.0 at the end of March.

Yong

On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 02:18, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We have recently released Bookkeeper 4.13.0.
> The contents of the release are mostly about making 'stable' the stream
> storage service, that is fundamental for Pulsar Stateful Functions.
> In order to make the BK stream service more stable we had to upgrade GRPC.
>
> I would like to know that you think about upgrading to BK 4.13.0 not only
> for master branch but also on 2.7.1.
> The motivation would be to make the Stateful Functions more stable and let
> more users use it in production with 2.7 without waiting for 2.8 (timeline
> is unknown and there is still lot of in progress work to be done)
>
> One point about not upgrading would be that BK is now shipping with ZK
> 3.6.2 by default and I am sure we don't want to upgrade ZK dependency in a
> point release (we are on ZK 3.5).
> But BK is not really using any ZK 3.6 features so it will work with ZK 3.5
> client without problems.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Enrico
>
> Il Dom 28 Feb 2021, 07:31 Michael Marshall <mikemars...@gmail.com> ha
> scritto:
>
> > There is a memory leak in 2.7.0 detailed in issue
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/9725.
> >
> > I have a fix (or at least part of a fix) for master as well as
> branch-2.7:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/9751
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/9752
> >
> > It's a simple fix (just needed to call release on an entry). We
> > should include this in the 2.7.1 release.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Michael Marshall
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 2:01 AM Jinfeng Huang
> <h...@streamnative.io.invalid
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > That's kind reminder, thank you Yong~
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Jennifer
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 4:59 PM Yong Zhang <zhangyong1025...@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thank you guys.
> > > >
> > > > I am clean up the PRs which are marked with the label
> `release/2.7.1`.
> > > > If you have PR which marked the `release/2.7.1`, please take a look
> > > > and make it merged as soon as possible, otherwise, it will be pushed
> > > > into the next release.
> > > > Thanks for your help!
> > > >
> > > > Yong Zhang
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 at 15:38, Jia Zhai <zhaiji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jia Zhai
> > > > >
> > > > > Beijing, China
> > > > >
> > > > > Mobile: +86 15810491983
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 1:20 PM Michael Marshall <
> > > mikemars...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1, thanks!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 7:06 PM Renkai Ge <gaelook...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2021年2月17日 下午3:12,Yong Zhang <y...@apache.org> 写道:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I hope you've all been doing well. It has been two months
> since
> > > we
> > > > > > > released
> > > > > > > > the Apache Pulsar
> > > > > > > > 2.7.0. We have a lot of fixes already merged. So I would like
> > to
> > > > > start
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > prepare our next patch
> > > > > > > > release in the next few days.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You can find the whole change list of the 2.7.1 release from:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.7.1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If I missed some features, please let me know. And if some
> PRs
> > > > can't
> > > > > > > > complete in a few days,
> > > > > > > > the owner can help check if we should include them in 2.7.1
> or
> > > push
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the next release version.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Yong
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to