For "what is breaking changes", at least the PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE gives some hints: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/bbb543d8ed2b03361807c852da1a31cfb92939f3/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md?plain=1#L56-L72
For the issued PR, Hang commented at https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15914#issuecomment-1146942281 that it changes the default behavior. An alternative is that the original PR author can hint a ! in title or BREAKING CHANGE and commit message like conventionalcommits spec defines. Best, tison. tison <wander4...@gmail.com> 于2023年2月28日周二 13:07写道： > > The release manager is unable to review all PRs before releasing it. > > At least the RM is responsible for PRs cherry-picked he/she made. As we > take compatibility in a high priority, if it's unclear a fix (patch) > without breaking changes, the RM can ask for confirmation. > > Best, > tison. > > > PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> 于2023年2月28日周二 12:45写道： > >> Hi enrico, >> >> +1 for your point. >> >> Do you know the details of the breaking change? >> I can't find any discussions under the mailing list about the breaking >> change. >> >> I have added the `release/important-notice ` label to the PR, and we >> should >> also discuss first, better to have a proposal if we are making breaking >> changes. >> >> IMO, the main issue here is that the release manager doesn't know the PR >> is >> introducing breaking changes, rather than thinking that the introduction >> of >> breaking changes is reasonable to the patch release. I noticed Jason had >> added the release/* label, I think he also isn't aware of the breaking >> change. >> >> The release manager is unable to review all PRs before releasing it. >> And the PR title said >> >> "[Fix][Tiered Storage] Eagerly Delete Offloaded Segments On Topic >> Deletion". >> >> My impression, it also should be bug fix. >> >> Regards, >> Penghui >> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 10:32 AM Xiangying Meng <xiangy...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Enrico Olivelli, >> > >> > Totally agree, we should be careful when cherry-picking PRs. And we >> can't >> > trust our own judgment too much. For an uncertain PR, we must submit a >> PR >> > and wait for everyone to review it together. >> > For example, for the PR [1] mentioned above, the measure I took was to >> push >> > a PR to cherry-pick and move it to the next release version (2.10.5) so >> > that we have enough time to discuss and reach an agreement. >> > >> > Sincerely, >> > Xiangying >> > [1] >> > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19640#pullrequestreview-1315805022 >> > >> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 9:56 AM Yubiao Feng >> > <yubiao.f...@streamnative.io.invalid> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Enrico Olivelli >> > > >> > > Thank you for helping me correct my mistake >> > > >> > > Yubiao Feng >> > > >> > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:27 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hello Committers, >> > > > I believe that we should stop cherry-picking breaking changes like >> [1] >> > > > to released branches. >> > > > Really, this is something that we cannot do. >> > > > >> > > > When you decide to cherry-pick a commit to a "stable branch", >> > > > currently branch-2.8, branch-2.9, branch-2.10 and branch-2.11 you >> > > > always have to think about these things: >> > > > - is it a breaking change ? >> > > > - is it really needed ? >> > > > - could it mine the stability of the branch ? >> > > > >> > > > The answer is usually that you can cherry-pick a change only if it >> > > > falls into these categories: >> > > > - there is a security hole to fix (in this case the PMC has to deal >> > > > with it, and usually this is done not publicly) >> > > > - there is a bad bug that cause data loss or other serious problems >> > > > >> > > > I have sent this message a few other times in the past. >> > > > We, the Pulsar community, are responsible for the stability of the >> > > > project and product that our users use in production. >> > > > >> > > > Even if you think that something that could "improve the >> performance" >> > > > or "do something better" is appealing you always have to keep in >> mind >> > > > that the risk of breaking something that is stable is too high in >> > > > respect to the gain in terms of performances or anything else. >> > > > >> > > > Improvements should go only to the master branch, and users will >> > > > benefit from them when we will cut a release. >> > > > >> > > > This is a free OSS project on which many users count on. >> > > > >> > > > If you are eager to see a performance improvement in your system, >> then >> > > > this is fine, >> > > > this is OSS and you can legally have a fork and cherry-pick the >> > > > patches and build it on your own. >> > > > This is the reason why OSS is cool. >> > > > But if you are able to cherry-pick a patch you are also able to >> > > > maintain your fork and fix any problems if the patch caused a >> > > > regression. >> > > > >> > > > Most of the consumers of OSS products rely on us because they don't >> > > > have enough engineering resources to maintain such a project by >> > > > themselves. >> > > > >> > > > They trust us and they won't scan a list of tens of commits in order >> > > > to double check if the upgrade will change the behaviour of their >> > > > applications. >> > > > >> > > > This is Pulsar momentum, let's do our best to fulfill the >> expectations >> > > > of the companies that are adopting our project. >> > > > >> > > > Enrico >> > > > >> > > > [1] >> > > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19640#pullrequestreview-1315805022 >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
