Il giorno mer 15 dic 2021 alle ore 12:52 Hang Chen <chenh...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> Hi Enrico, > Thanks for your great work! I found 150+ PR labeled as > `release/2.9.1`, but doesn't contain in v2.9.1-candidate-1 tag. Does > those PRs release in next version? > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.1+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.9+is%3Aclosed > > In theory the answer is "yes", I am double checking. it is always an hard task Enrico > Thanks, > Hang > > Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> 于2021年12月15日周三 19:19写道： > > > > I had prepared the rc1 for 2.9.1 > > > > but today I added https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13291 > > > > I will create a new RC and send a VOTE, possibly today > > > > The first RC will be rc2, in order to not mess up the git repository and > > the dist area > > > > Enrico > > > > Il giorno lun 13 dic 2021 alle ore 19:22 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> > ha > > scritto: > > > > > 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/> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
