+1 (non-binding) -- Thanks Xiaolong Ran
Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> 于2023年2月3日周五 00:04写道： > Asaf, > > Il giorno gio 2 feb 2023 alle ore 16:03 Asaf Mesika > <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > Enrico - do we have those "rules" of conduct logged somewhere? > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/wiki/proposals/PIP.md > > it reads... > "Once some consensus is reached, there will be a vote to formally > approve the proposal. The vote will be held on the > dev@pulsar.apache.org mailing list. Everyone is welcome to vote on the > proposal, though it will considered to be binding only the vote of PMC > members. I would be required to have a lazy majority of at least 3 > binding +1s votes. The vote should stay open for at least 48 hours." > > > > > Enrico > > > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 4:59 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Il giorno gio 2 feb 2023 alle ore 15:52 Asaf Mesika > > > <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > > > > > I agree. I don't think we can start a vote without closing all open > > > issues > > > > raised in the discussion, until a given timeout - 3 days is not > > > > enough timeout IMO > > > > > > > > > Agreed > > > > > > Also many people don't follow the mailing list during the weekend > > > (Saturday/Sunday) > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 9:16 AM Michael Marshall < > mmarsh...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > We did not have this discussion or vote open long enough. The > > > > > discussion started on a Saturday and then the vote started on > Monday. > > > > > The vote was closed 24 hours later. > > > > > > > > > > I just sent a note to the discussion thread. I would like to > discuss > > > > > increasing the scope of this PIP before we officially close this > vote. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 4:29 PM <mattisonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Passed the voting by 8 +1 (5 binding and 3 non-binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > Closed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Mattison > > > > > > On Jan 31, 2023, 06:57 +0800, mattisonc...@gmail.com, wrote: > > > > > > > Hello everyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start the vote for PIP-242 > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19239, > > > > > > > Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Mattison > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------- Paste original PIP content to help quote ------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ### Motivation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently, the Apache Pulsar broker allows users to create a > topic > > > > > name that includes `-partition-`, which is confusing for our > > > developers to > > > > > identify whether this is a partition of a partitioned topic. Plus, > we > > > need > > > > > to add more logic to be compatible with this special topic name. > for > > > > > example: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19240 > > > > > > > - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19230 > > > > > > > - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19171 > > > > > > > - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19086 > > > > > > > - ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ### Goal > > > > > > > This proposal wants `-partition-` to be a topic name keyword. > Users > > > > > can only create a topic with it if the topic is partitioned. For > the > > > > > compatibility reason, we want to Introduce a new configuration - > > > > > `enableStrictTopicName` for the broker to help reject creating a > topic > > > in > > > > > the following cases: > > > > > > > 1. Create a partitioned topic that includes `-partition-`. > > > > > > > 2. Create a topic which is not a partitioned topic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **Create a topic:** > > > > > > > _no corresponding partitioned topic_ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - persistent://public/default/local-name (passed) > > > > > > > - persistent://public/default/local-name-partition-z (rejected > by > > > > > keyword) > > > > > > > - persistent://public/default/local-name-partition-0 (rejected > by > > > > > keyword) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _Has corresponding partitioned topic, **partitions=2** and > topic > > > > > partition name is **persistent://public/default/local-name**_ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - persistent://public/default/local-name-partition-0 (passed, > > > Because > > > > > it is the partition topic's sub-partition) > > > > > > > - persistent://public/default/local-name-partition-z (rejected > by > > > > > keyword) > > > > > > > - persistent://public/default/local-name-partition-4 (rejected, > > > > > Because it exceeds the number of maximum partitions) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > **Create a partitioned topic(topic metadata)** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - persistent://public/default/local-name (passed) > > > > > > > - persistent://public/default/local-name-partition-z (rejected > by > > > > > keyword) > > > > > > > - persistent://public/default/local-name-partition-0 (rejected > by > > > > > keyword) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ### API Changes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Add a new configuration, `enableStrictTopicName=false`. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ### Implementation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Add configuration `enableStrictTopicName=false`. > > > > > > > 2. Add rejection logic when the user enables > > > `enableStrictTopicName`. > > > > > > > 4. Add warning logs to inform users that we do not recommend > > > creating > > > > > non-partitioned topics with the keyword `-partition-`. > > > > > > > 5. Make `enableStrictTopicName=true` in the next major release. > > > > > > > > >
