Yes, all necessary PRs are cherry-picked to branch-2.9, and the test pass, 
refer to https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commits/branch-2.9, I'm cutting the 
new RC from the current branch-2.9.

On 2022/02/15 14:57:25 Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> 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
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> 

Reply via email to