Same confusion about the criterion of PIP. Wenzhi Feng.
On 2025/02/26 04:42:27 Yunze Xu wrote: > Hi all, > > I noticed two PRs were merged recently and cherry-picked into > branch-3.0 and branch-4.0, where 3.0 and 4.0 are LTS releases. > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/24012 fixes a bug for the > implementation of PIP-322. However, it adds a new configuration > without a new PIP or change on the existing PIP. It definitely > violates "When is a PIP required" [1]. (Any change to the > configuration) > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/23697 fixes a message loss issue > caused by geo-replication by introducing a new feature flag > `supports_repl_dedup_by_lid_and_eid`. It also violates [1] (Any new > feature for Pulsar brokers or client) > > I also noticed https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/24025, which adds > a new config `managedLedgerOffloadReadThreads` as well. Though it's > only cherry-picked into branch-3.3 but not for LTS releases (3.0 and > 4.0) > > I found the definition of "bug-fixes" ambiguous. It seems like a > silver bullet that if we want a PR to be included in the LTS release, > we only need to say, "it's a bug fix", no matter if it changes > anything that requires a PIP. > > Based on the fact that the PIP rule is not widely followed, should we > update and loose the requirement? > > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/tree/master/pip#when-is-a-pip-required > > Thanks, > Yunze >
