Thank you for sharing that! I think we should separate discussing a process from finishing a release. In other words, we shouldn't block on a process in order to finish a release.
We should use the old process to finish a release while discussing a process to improve the release notes process. - Sijie On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:04 AM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On Dec 13, 2021, at 9:57 AM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I am fine with doing 2.9.1. > > > > I am trying to understand what happened between released 2.9.0 and > > announcing it. > > > > It usually means there is a gap in the release process. We need to solve > > the process. If it is RM's responsibility for announcing the release, it > > should happen as soon as the release was cut. If the RM doesn't do it in > > time, other committers or PMC members should jump on it to help. I feel > > something was held up somewhere. But I don't know what is going on there. > > See the thread regarding release notes - > https://lists.apache.org/thread/sszycc3zjxkdqd9x5f16108qn0x7w5g1 > > Regards, > Dave > > > > - Sijie > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 9:47 AM Chris Herzog <cher...@tibco.com.invalid> > > wrote: > > > >> I'm 100% with Dave. 2.9.0 is released (it's up on Maven), if it's not > >> "announced", that's just a "publicity" effort because the 2.9.0 release > is > >> out there. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:34 PM Dave Fisher <wave4d...@comcast.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> (1) we have published 2.9.0 at > >>> https://downloads.apache.org/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.0/ > >>> > >>> (2) we have published 2.9.0 artifacts through maven central. They don’t > >>> let anyone republish versions. > >>> > >>> There are no do overs on versions. We simply cannot redo 2.9.0 at this > >>> moment. > >>> > >>> All the best, > >>> Dave > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >>>> On Dec 12, 2021, at 8:49 PM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> My take is - if we haven't announced 2.9, I would suggest just > redoing > >>> the > >>>> 2.9.0 release. > >>>> > >>>> - Sijie > >>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 6:35 PM Hang Chen <chenh...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I am a little confused about why we should skip 2.9.0 and not > continue > >>>>> to release 2.9.0 by including the critical bug fixes. In fact, the > >>>>> Pulsar 2.9.0 release is not yet completed. > >>>>> > >>>>> For users, they will worry about whether the Pulsar release process > is > >>>>> standardized if we skip 2.9.0. They will also worry about the release > >>>>> quality of Apache Pulsar if we have found the critical bugs before it > >>>>> is released but not included it into the release version. For Pulsar > >>>>> 2.9.0, it couldn't be deployed into the production environment due to > >>>>> the critical bug https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12993 > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Hang > >>>>> > >>>>> Dave Fisher <wave4d...@comcast.net> 于2021年12月13日周一 09:40写道： > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It can be the case that releases are not announced. For example with > >>>>> Tomcat a version which fails to pass the vote is skipped. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Let’s not announce 2.9.0 and go on to 2.9.1. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Maybe there’s some website fixes to hide 2.9.0. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Dec 12, 2021, at 5:28 PM, PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Another point is we have not announced the 2.9.0 release yet. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This will make users feel confused that a new release from the > >> Pulsar > >>>>>>> community with the > >>>>>>> serious problem(log4j bug) but after the log4j has fixed the issue > >> and > >>>>>>> provided the new release. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think we'd better contain the fix in 2.9.0 and 2.9.0 also has a > >>>>> critical > >>>>>>> bug https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12993 > >>>>>>> which will lead the topic stop to provide services for more than > >> 5min. > >>>>> It > >>>>>>> looks like, hey, we have a new release here but > >>>>>>> it has critical security issues and known serious bugs which will > >>>>> seriously > >>>>>>> affect the core features. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> From the perspective of release, yes, the release vote has closed. > >> But > >>>>> I > >>>>>>> believe that users will not care about this matter, > >>>>>>> they only care about the quality of the products we provided. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would like to hear your views. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>> Penghui > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 6:26 PM Enrico Olivelli < > >> eolive...@gmail.com > >>>> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I am starting 2.9.1 on Monday > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Enrico > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Il Dom 12 Dic 2021, 02:19 陳智弘 <thomasec...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Totally agree > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> 於 2021年12月12日 週日 08:28 寫道： > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Penghui > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Matteo Merli <mme...@apache.org>于2021年12月11日 周六15:28写道： > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> At this point, if 2.9.0 is non stable, I think we should > >>>>> fast-forward > >>>>>>>>>>> to 2.9.1 which will include security fix. Though, we should > >> start > >>>>>>>>>>> 2.9.1 right now. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> Matteo Merli > >>>>>>>>>>> <mme...@apache.org> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 11:23 PM Michael Marshall < > >>>>>>>>> mmarsh...@apache.org> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 - thanks Enrico. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> - Michael > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 1:11 AM Lari Hotari < > >> lhot...@apache.org> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> la 11. jouluk. 2021 klo 9.07 Enrico Olivelli < > >>>>>>>> eolive...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> kirjoitti: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello folks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yesterday we committed the release notes for 2.9.0. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just have to publish a couple of other artifacts and > update > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> website > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> before announcing 2.9.0. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My plan is to complete the procedure next week. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meantime, early next week, I believe it is time to > >>>>>>>> prepare > >>>>>>>>>>> the first > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RC of 2.9.1, due to the log4j bug. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are aware of problems on branch-2.9 or things to be > >>>>>>>>>>> cherry-picked > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they are blocker please let me know. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise if branch-2.9 is stable I will cut the RC from > what > >>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>> already > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have now. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am volunteering as RM for 2.9.1 as I followed 2.9.0 and > >>>>>>>> release > >>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically non stable due to the bugs we discovered after > >>>>>>>>> completing > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> VOTE and publishing the artifacts to dockerhub and Maven > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enrico > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> > >> Chris Herzog Messaging Team | O 630 300 7718 | M 815 263 3764 | > >> www.tibco.com > >> > >> <http://www.tibco.com/> > >> > >
