Hi I'm going to release 2.11 today.
Regards Jiwei Guo On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 9:52 AM guo jiwei <techno...@apache.org> wrote: > Most of you agree to use the previous branch-2.11 for release, I will > start the release this week. > > Regards > Jiwei Guo > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 4:23 AM Nicolò Boschi <boschi1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> My two cents, >> >> I think we should go forward with the current branch. All the cherry picks >> were done in a thoughtful way. >> >> My assumption is that if we go down recutting the branch from the current >> master, it will take at least a couple of weeks to get it in a stable >> condition. Other than that, there’s still the time needed for rc, vote, >> and >> so on. >> >> From my understanding now the current branch is ready for an rc since we >> upgraded bookkeeper and all the perf doubts are gone away. >> >> If we start with an rc this week, we’ll be likely able to release 2.11 in >> December. (And we’re still 4 months late). >> >> >> Cheers, >> Nicolò >> >> Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle 21:03 Yunze Xu >> <y...@streamnative.io.invalid> >> ha scritto: >> >> > Hi Enrico, >> > >> > It's okay for me to cut the current master as 2.11.0, but since many new >> > PRs >> > were merged recently, I'm afraid some regressions might be introduced. I >> > found >> > some flaky tests (like [1]) recently, not sure whether they are caused >> > by bugs. And >> > there is also a PR [2] that tries to solve a bug but it also brings a >> > regression. See >> > my fix here: [3] >> > >> > Generally, when there are more PRs between two major releases, there >> will >> > be >> > a higher possibility to introduce more unstable factors. So we must >> > take it verfy >> > carefully with the 2.11 release. >> > >> > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18480 >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18454 >> > [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18486 >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Yunze >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:30 AM Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org >> > >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > 3.0.0 means "breaking changes" >> > > >> > > PIP 175 [0] proposes a different meaning to 3.0.0. The proposed >> > > meaning is that each major release is an LTS version. Here is the >> > > exact wording: >> > > >> > > > The major version bump will not carry any special meaning in terms >> of >> > > > "big features" included in the release or breaking API changes. >> > > > Instead, it would simply signal the type of the release. >> > > >> > > However, I don't remember a vote to adopt PIP 175. I see the >> > > discussion on the ML [1], but I don't see the vote. >> > > >> > > - Michael >> > > >> > > [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 >> > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rg1g083c06ozm5go6zo1jophg9y9zl2f >> > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:40 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle ore 15:26 Hang Chen >> > > > <chenh...@apache.org> ha scritto: >> > > > > >> > > > > If we drop the current branch-2.11 and release based on the >> master, >> > > > > why not release 3.0.0 based on the master branch directly >> according >> > to >> > > > > the new release plan [1]. >> > > > >> > > > 3.0.0 means "breaking changes" >> > > > current master is 100% compatible >> > > > >> > > > Enrico >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > If we cut the master branch and release Pulsar 2.11.0, we will >> wait >> > at >> > > > > least three months before we cut 3.0.0. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > Hang >> > > > > >> > > > > guo jiwei <techno...@apache.org> 于2022年11月14日周一 17:16写道： >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I found out that several PRs have been unable to cherry-pick to >> > 2.11 today. >> > > > > > I agree to cut the new branch based on the master and turn off >> the >> > > > > > new/unstable features in branch-2.11. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Regards >> > > > > > Tboy >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM Dave Fisher < >> wave4d...@comcast.net> >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Inline >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 2022, at 6:55 AM, Enrico Olivelli < >> > eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > PengHui, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Il giorno mar 1 nov 2022 alle ore 07:51 PengHui Li >> > > > > > > >> <peng...@apache.org> ha scritto: >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >>> As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8. >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> Agree. We should clarify this one. >> > > > > > > >> I think we can stop to provide new releases for 2.7 >> > > > > > > >> and only security or critical bugs for 2.8 (one more >> official >> > release) >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 will make >> the >> > > > > > > >> release strategy clear. >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> LTS -> 36 months (24 + 12) >> > > > > > > >> Feature release -> 6 months (3+3) >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> Thanks, >> > > > > > > >> Penghui >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall < >> > mmarsh...@apache.org> >> > > > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >>> 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. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I am not sure. >> > > > > > > > I don't know if anyone is actively testing the 2.11 branch >> > more than >> > > > > > > > the master branch. >> > > > > > > > On my side the (automated) testing that I do with my >> > colleagues on >> > > > > > > > branch-2.11 is basically the same as for the master branch. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I believe that if we want to cut a 2.11 release that is not >> > branched >> > > > > > > > again from the master branch >> > > > > > > > we really must start the release as soon as BK 4.15.3 is >> > released >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I understand that Bookkeeper issues have Ben what’s blocking >> 2.11 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Many people contributed features to the master branch that >> > cannot be >> > > > > > > > shipped with 2.11 because >> > > > > > > > they are considered "breaking changes". >> > > > > > > > But 2.11 was supposed to be released in August, more than 3 >> > months ago. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I think we can recognize that our past history has been that >> > there are >> > > > > > > often 3 or 4 RCs for our 2.x.0 releases. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Maybe we should be cherry picking some PRs on master to 2.11 >> > before we >> > > > > > > start the process? It may or may not save an RC but it will >> give >> > us time to >> > > > > > > be realistic about a reasonable cadence from 2.10.x to 2.11.x >> to >> > 2.12.x … >> > > > > > > it’s hard to support many versions at once. The CVE announced >> > today took >> > > > > > > months to be included in all of our current releases from >> 2.7.5 >> > to 2.10.2. >> > > > > > > Separation of C++ and Pulsar client releases from Pulsar >> > releases helps >> > > > > > > here, but it may not with the next security issue. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Regards, >> > > > > > > Dave >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Enrico >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > >>>> 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 >> > > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall < >> > mmarsh...@apache.org> >> > > > > > > >> wrote: >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >>> 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 >> > > > > > > >>>>> >> > > > > > > >>>> >> > > > > > > >>> >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> -- >> Nicolò Boschi >> >
