Thanks for your feedback Enrico. I'd appreciate any other thoughts on this process since I am proposing a change to a recently implemented PIP.
Also, if we like this new direction, I think we should update our GitHub issue template to communicate this new process. I already have a PR for my proposed changes: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12176. Please take a look, if you're able. Thanks, Michael On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 1:29 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Michael, > > Il Ven 24 Set 2021, 19:47 Michael Marshall <mikemars...@gmail.com> ha > scritto: > > > Hi Enrico, > > > > Thank you for raising this concern. Apparently acquiring a distributed > > lock on a PIP number is non-trivial :) > > > > We could use the first 3 digits of a hash computed on the title of the PIP. > Just joking:) > > > > > What about sending an email to dev in order to ask for a new PIP id ? > > > > In this design, is it up to a committer (someone with write access to > > the Wiki page) to reply to the request with a PIP number? I think this > > could lead to confusion, as no one person would have the job and there > > could be delays in responding. > > > > Instead of receiving a PIP number, I think we could ask users to > > inspect the mailing list archive to determine the next PIP number. > > > > This is a good idea. > And it perfectly matches the rule that in the ASF is the main source of > truth. > So I totally support this idea > > > > > Then, the mailing list is the source of truth for PIP numbers, and > > there isn't any delay. This protocol can still have collisions if > > multiple people send PIPs at the same time. However, I think these > > collisions could be resolved quickly: the earliest email in the > > archive wins, and others need to pick the next number(s). > > > > Also, this raises a secondary question for me. In our new PIP process, > > are we copying PIPs from GitHub issues into the GitHub wiki? > > > > In order to push this conversation forward, I wrote a PR with my > > proposed solution to the problem: > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12176. I am not attached to my > > solution per se, but I do think a solution to this problem should > > include an update to the GitHub template to help new PIP writers > > easily understand the process. > > > > Agreed > > Thanks > Enrico > > > > > Does anyone volunteer to clean up the PIP list page ? > > Once we settle on a protocol, we will need to clean up, as now we have > > two PIP 97s. > > > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 9:51 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > Today I had to rename my PIP from PIP-93 to PIP-95 because PIP-93 was > > > picked up. > > > Then I realised that PIP95 already exists on GitHub, then I moved to > > PIP-97. > > > > > > There are multiple PIP-95 on the Wiki page. > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki > > > > > > We need a way to assign new PIP ids > > > > > > What about sending an email to dev in order to ask for a new PIP id ? > > > > > > Only committers have write privileges to the Wiki pages, so any PIP id > > > assignment needs a sponsor that assigns the PIP id and creates the wiki > > > page. > > > > > > I propose to add a link to the PIP issue in the wiki page until the PIP > > is > > > accepted, > > > because we recently decided to run PIP discussions as GH issues > > > > > > Does anyone volunteer to clean up the PIP list page ? > > > > > > Regards > > > Enrico > >
