Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no? We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11. If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new regressions will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a 2.11.0 release.
IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966) after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months. For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466 I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now. Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for that case. We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar. Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since 4.15.2 has regressions [1] [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523 Thanks, Penghui On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> wrote: > I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it makes > sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master. > > We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch > will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3 > months. > > If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR > tags and milestones to prevent confusion. > > Thanks, > Michael > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Hello Pulsar fellows, > > > > I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11. > > > > The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one. > > > > In the meantime many features went into master branch, > > > > I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11 > > and start with something that is already stale. > > > > I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the > > current master branch and start the period of hardening before cutting > > the release. > > > > IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or fixed > > or closed as "not a problem": > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466 > > I am personally working on that case together with the folks you > > created the issue. > > Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with Pulsar. > > I believe that it will take at least another week before having more > > results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is > > reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a > > third party project and only in some private QA environment. > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > Enrico >
