Hi Lari, We have another issue that needs to confirm if it will introduce break changes in 2.9.2, Expected to have a result tomorrow, it related to https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13383, We're doing more testing to make sure it doesn't introduce unexpected behavior.
Regards, Penghui On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 8:10 PM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > When is 2.9.2 Candidate 3 planned? > What changes will it include? All current changes in branch-2.9 ? > The version has already been set to 2.9.3-SNAPSHOT in branch-2.9 with > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14089 . If we do 2.9.2 with all > current changes from branch-2.9, the commit for PR 14089 would have to be > reverted before the next release. > Another possibility is to skip 2.9.2 completely and proceed directly with > 2.9.3 release. > > -Lari > > On 2022/02/11 08:28:58 PengHui Li wrote: > > Now, there is a regression introduced in 2.9.2 > > > > I have pushed out the fix https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14231, > PTAL. > > > > -1 from my side > > > > Need to get the fix merged and roll out the new RC3 @Ran > > > > Regards, > > Penghui > > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 9:54 PM Nicolò Boschi <boschi1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Penghui, > > > > > > > > > I didn't know that there were so many known bugs around transactions > > > scheduled for 2.9.3, my bad. > > > > > > However, as Enrico pointed out, the issue impacts Pulsar clients that > are > > > not using the transactions, so we can't just say - ok, just another bug > > > about transactions, it's not critical since they're not production > ready > > > (btw, where we state that they aren't production ready on the > > > documentation?). > > > > > > > > > The workaround you mentioned is not always viable, since you can have > > > clients of different tenants/customers that are not using transactions > > > while, at the same time, a little portion that are experiencing with > them. > > > > > > I agree that it is uncommon to have only one message produced. On the > other > > > hand, it's a very common case where other projects using Pulsar have > > > unit/integration tests that write only one message and expect to be > > > consumed (that's because they test the application logic and not > Pulsar). > > > > > > > > > Given that, it's fair to say that 2.9.2 is not worse than 2.9.1, so, > > > finally, we can go ahead. > > > > > > Looking forward to see 2.9.3 soon > > > > > > > > > I tested the artifacts, so I'll put my vote here: > > > > > > > > > +1 (non binding) > > > > > > > > > Checks: > > > > > > - Checksum and signatures > > > > > > - Apache Rat check passes > > > > > > - Compile from source w JDK11 > > > > > > - Build docker image from source > > > > > > - Run Pulsar standalone and produce-consume from CLI > > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > Nicolò > > > > > > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 13:39 PengHui Li < > peng...@apache.org> > > > ha > > > scritto: > > > > > > > > Please go ahead with the release, I won't VOTE on this thread. > > > > But I hope we can follow up soon with a new release, otherwise due to > > > that > > > > bug > > > > you cannot enable transactions on your Pulsar cluster if you have to > > > > support Pulsar client that do not enable transactions > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, agree. We will follow up the 2.9.3 soon. There are other > > > > ongoing transaction fixes > > > > we will complete them ASAP and provide a version with certain > guarantees > > > > for transaction stability. > > > > We are doing lots of tests these days, 2.9.3 should be a good > version for > > > > transactions. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Penghui > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:37 PM Lin Lin <lin...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1(binding) > > > > > > > > > > 1. Checked the signature > > > > > 2. Start standalone > > > > > 3. Publish and consume successfully > > > > > 4. Checked function > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Nicolò Boschi > > > > > >
