Hi， When verifying the release, we found that there is a problem with the connector. We are looking for the cause and will continue to release it after it is fixed.
Regards Jiwei Guo (Tboy) On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 3:40 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > >> > > > >
