Il giorno gio 17 nov 2022 alle ore 03:06 guo jiwei <techno...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > Hi > I'm going to release 2.11 today. Great !
Enrico > > > 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 > >> > >
