Double-check: do we need a PIP for newly added connectors? https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19821#issuecomment-1488860517
On 2023/03/27 14:14:23 tison wrote: > Hi Asaf, > > > Shouldn’t poeople that has write access to merge must first validate of > course if PIP is approved before merge? > > Yeah. I think they should have to. > > Now we have two issues here: > > 1. Since the patch is merged, I send a notice here so that if > anyone objects this proposal, they can raise a revert request. > 2. Validate our process and notify committers to verify PRs associated with > PIP that the proposal is approved. Maybe the author can help set the PR as > a draft before the PIP reached a consensus also. > > Best, > tison. > > > Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> 于2023年3月27日周一 20:48写道： > > > I don’t a role in Pulsar. > > I reviewed the code and it was altered until it was satisfactory. > > > > Shouldn’t poeople that has write access to merge must first validate of > > course if PIP is approved before merge? > > > > > > > On 26 Mar 2023, at 15:27, tison <wander4...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I noticed that PIP-214[1] "Add broker level metrics statistics and expose > > > to prometheus" was discussed at [2], but we didn't start a vote. However, > > > the patch and doc updates were merged [3][4]. > > > > > > When trying to close the issue, I found this case, and I'm wondering if > > > it's not a proposal or we do something wrong here. > > > > > > Best, > > > tison. > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18056 > > > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/0qcwntm7hoc9x21dn21ybnq9qo5ogqsw > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19047 > > > [4] https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/475 > > > > >
