yes, +1 agree
Regards Jiwei Guo (Tboy) On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 11:37 AM Matteo Merli <matteo.me...@gmail.com> wrote: > Good point. I have created a PR here: > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/21795 > > We can always cherry-pick changes into the release branch, during the code > freeze, with the appropriate precautions :) > > Matteo > > > -- > Matteo Merli > <matteo.me...@gmail.com> > > > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 9:41 AM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Do we target release 3.2.0 if this change gets accepted? > > > > The code freeze for 3.2.0 was about to start today and I blocked that. I > > removed the already started branch-3.2 (which didn't contain any changes) > > until the decision has been made. I hope this makes sense. If not, we can > > always cut the branch again, nothing has been lost. > > > > re: https://lists.apache.org/thread/0pl9by5c53nkjp7vld3x89c8nqjrx9on > > > > -Lari > > > > On 2023/12/22 17:09:19 Matteo Merli wrote: > > > I want to start a discussion regarding the removal of all the code > > related > > > to the Trino (PrestoDB) plugin from the Pulsar main repository. > > > > > > This topic was already discussed and approved long time ago in PIP-62 ( > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-62%3A-Move-connectors%2C-adapters-and-Pulsar-Presto-to-separate-repositories > > > ) > > > > > > The main reasons for not having Presto plugin as part of the main > > > distribution of Pulsar were (and still are valid): > > > > > > 1. We need to ship the entire Presto runtime which is ~400 MB. This > > makes > > > our tgz and Docker images huge > > > 3. There is no strict need for this component to be in the same > > > distribution / image: it could easily be provided in a different > release > > > tgz or Docker image > > > > > > Though I think that since then it became more clear that the current > > state > > > of this plugin has been stagnating over the years. > > > > > > 1. There are not many active users of Pulsar-SQL component (I'd be very > > > happy to be contradicted here) > > > 2. The plugin code has not been improved in a long time > > > 3. There are several open security issues (actually, almost the > totality > > of > > > current dependencies issues are today coming from Trino). > > > > > > My suggestion would be that, if there is any volunteer willing to pick > > this > > > plugin up and maintain it in a separate repository (within the Apache > > > Pulsar project) and with a separate release schedule, we should go > ahead > > > and move it. > > > If there are no volunteers, we should just remove it as it is. If later > > on > > > we want to revive it, we can always import the code from the last > commit. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Matteo Merli > > > <mme...@apache.org> > > > > > >
