Hi Ran, I think all the PRs that block the 2.9.2 release are merged. Could you please help cherry-pick the PRs and start a new RC?
Thanks, Penghui On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 8:25 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 >> > > >> > >> >
