Ran, Are we cutting the new RC from the current branch-2.9? Enrico
Il Mar 15 Feb 2022, 14:57 PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> ha scritto: > 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 > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
