I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and planning to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that problem worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
Thanks, Michael On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > > >
