Yu, Il giorno lun 20 dic 2021 alle ore 10:01 Yu <li...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> Hi Enrico, > > Thanks for your contribution. > > 1) A soft reminder that is not on the current release process [a]: > Since 2.9.0 was delayed, some doc changes on the master are applied to > 2.10.0 only, so generating the 2.9.0 doc set should be based on the "2.9.0 > release time point" rather than the current master, or else the 2.9.0 doc > set might contain 2.10 feature docs. > This is actually a good point. I am not sure about how I can fix this. Maybe I can try to create the versioned docs from the v2.9.0 tag > > 2) 2.9.0 is not announced and the 2.9.0 release note is available on the > website. > For the previous releases, we have tech blogs for them to (announce and) > explain highlights [b], will you create a tech blog for 2.9.0? > I am sorry but I won't have time to do this before the beginning of January, it would be useful if someone could do it Enrico > > [a] > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/Release-process#16-update-the-site > [b] https://pulsar.apache.org/blog/2021/09/23/Apache-Pulsar-2-8-1/ > > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 7:36 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Il giorno ven 17 dic 2021 alle ore 09:45 Yu <li...@apache.org> ha > scritto: > > > > > Hi Enrico, > > > > > > Thanks for your great effort on the 2.9.0 release. > > > > > > Circling back to see if there is any progress of the 2.9.0 website > > updates > > > [1]. > > > > > > Currently, the 2.9.0 doc is not available on the website and the 2.9.0 > > doc > > > set has not been generated yet, any updates? Thanks > > > > > > > > > I will do it together with 2.9.1 > > because 2.9.0 is broken, so it is better to not do much buzz around it > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/Release-process#16-update-the-site > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 3:32 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Dave, > > > > You are correct. > > > > Pulsar 2.9.0 has already been released and also some people already > > > started > > > > to report issues. > > > > The docker images have been deployed and we cannot change them. > > > > > > > > I am finishing the release process for 2.9.0 with the website > updates. > > > > > > > > I am preparing 2.9.1. > > > > > > > > I propose to just skip the announcement for 2.9.0. > > > > > > > > If we are quick during the VOTE we can close this story within the > end > > of > > > > the week > > > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > Il Lun 13 Dic 2021, 06:34 Dave Fisher <wave4d...@comcast.net> ha > > > scritto: > > > > > > > > > (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 > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
