PIP 112: Generate Release Notes Automatically

[Yu]

Hi Pulsarers,

As we know[1], there are some issues in the current Pulsar release notes
(RN), for example:

- For Pulsar users
They cannot capture the highlights quickly since the RN is a raw dump of
PRs.

- For Pulsar release managers (RM)
They feel overwhelmed by the **manual** workload of generating RN since it
is created based on git commit messages, while many people do not provide
clear and meaningful info.
It’s time-consuming to clear up all info especially for a major release
with lots of PRs.

If RN is regarded as an afterthought and finished as a last-minute task, it
is likely not written well.
Instead of rushing, treating RN as a part of development not only reduces
RM's workload and makes communication more coordinated,
but also allows more time for us to choose the most valuable highlights
shown to users.
Consequently, the process of the current workflow should be improved.

Therefore, I propose the PIP 112: Generate Release Notes Automatically [2]
and add some initial thoughts and research there.
It is only a draft but I would like to invite you to join us to bring
another major change to Pulsar. I believe this would bring many benefits to
all of us, thanks!

[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/dl3jb9p3zvlc6ntlkpmxf1m8dw5dcd8z
[2]
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-112%3A-Generate-Release-Notes-Automatically

[ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Marvin Cai

[linlin]

The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Marvin Cai
https://github.com/MarvinCai to become a committer and we are pleased to
announce that he has accepted.

Marvin has joined the community for more than 1 year now and he is active in
the Pulsar community for more than 6 months.

Welcome and Congratulations, Marvin!

Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Marvin onboard!

Best Regards,
Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC

Re: PIP 112: Generate Release Notes Automatically

[Enrico Olivelli]

Yu,
thanks a great initiative and I support it at 100%

It looks like you are on your way.
Looking forward to seeing the results !

Enrico


Il giorno lun 13 dic 2021 alle ore 09:19 Yu  ha scritto:

> Hi Pulsarers,
>
> As we know[1], there are some issues in the current Pulsar release notes
> (RN), for example:
>
> - For Pulsar users
> They cannot capture the highlights quickly since the RN is a raw dump of
> PRs.
>
> - For Pulsar release managers (RM)
> They feel overwhelmed by the **manual** workload of generating RN since it
> is created based on git commit messages, while many people do not provide
> clear and meaningful info.
> It’s time-consuming to clear up all info especially for a major release
> with lots of PRs.
>
> If RN is regarded as an afterthought and finished as a last-minute task, it
> is likely not written well.
> Instead of rushing, treating RN as a part of development not only reduces
> RM's workload and makes communication more coordinated,
> but also allows more time for us to choose the most valuable highlights
> shown to users.
> Consequently, the process of the current workflow should be improved.
>
> Therefore, I propose the PIP 112: Generate Release Notes Automatically [2]
> and add some initial thoughts and research there.
> It is only a draft but I would like to invite you to join us to bring
> another major change to Pulsar. I believe this would bring many benefits to
> all of us, thanks!
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/dl3jb9p3zvlc6ntlkpmxf1m8dw5dcd8z
> [2]
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-112%3A-Generate-Release-Notes-Automatically
>

CI is failing consistently due to maven.restlet.com

[Enrico Olivelli]

Hello,
CI is failing due to an expired certificate on maven.restlet.com.

I was waiting for CI to be green before cutting 2.9.1so sad !

Error: Failed to execute goal on project pulsar-io-solr: Could not resolve
dependencies for project org.apache.pulsar:pulsar-io-solr:jar:2.9.0: Failed
to collect dependencies at org.apache.solr:solr-core:jar:8.6.3 ->
org.restlet.jee:org.restlet:jar:2.4.3: Failed to read artifact descriptor
for org.restlet.jee:org.restlet:jar:2.4.3: Could not transfer artifact
org.restlet.jee:org.restlet:pom:2.4.3 from/to maven-restlet (
https://maven.restlet.com): transfer failed for
https://maven.restlet.com/org/restlet/jee/org.restlet/2.4.3/org.restlet-2.4.3.pom:
PKIX path validation failed: java.security.cert.CertPathValidatorException:
validity check failed: NotAfter: Sat Dec 11 22:28:29 UTC 2021 -> [Help 1]

Thoughts ?

Enrico

Re: CI is failing consistently due to maven.restlet.com

[Enrico Olivelli]

I would change CI jobs by adding "
-Dmaven.wagon.http.ssl.ignore.validity.dates=true"

but that should considered some kind of security problem as we could
download from bad https servers

Enrico


Il giorno lun 13 dic 2021 alle ore 11:35 Enrico Olivelli <
eolive...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Hello,
> CI is failing due to an expired certificate on maven.restlet.com.
>
> I was waiting for CI to be green before cutting 2.9.1so sad !
>
> Error: Failed to execute goal on project pulsar-io-solr: Could not resolve
> dependencies for project org.apache.pulsar:pulsar-io-solr:jar:2.9.0: Failed
> to collect dependencies at org.apache.solr:solr-core:jar:8.6.3 ->
> org.restlet.jee:org.restlet:jar:2.4.3: Failed to read artifact descriptor
> for org.restlet.jee:org.restlet:jar:2.4.3: Could not transfer artifact
> org.restlet.jee:org.restlet:pom:2.4.3 from/to maven-restlet (
> https://maven.restlet.com): transfer failed for
> https://maven.restlet.com/org/restlet/jee/org.restlet/2.4.3/org.restlet-2.4.3.pom:
> PKIX path validation failed: java.security.cert.CertPathValidatorException:
> validity check failed: NotAfter: Sat Dec 11 22:28:29 UTC 2021 -> [Help 1]
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> Enrico
>

Re: PIP 112: Generate Release Notes Automatically

[Li Li]

+1

Good idea, I think I can be part of this PIP after I finished upgrading pulsar 
website.

Thanks,
LiLi

> On Dec 13, 2021, at 4:18 PM, Yu  wrote:
> 
> Hi Pulsarers,
> 
> As we know[1], there are some issues in the current Pulsar release notes
> (RN), for example:
> 
> - For Pulsar users
> They cannot capture the highlights quickly since the RN is a raw dump of
> PRs.
> 
> - For Pulsar release managers (RM)
> They feel overwhelmed by the **manual** workload of generating RN since it
> is created based on git commit messages, while many people do not provide
> clear and meaningful info.
> It’s time-consuming to clear up all info especially for a major release
> with lots of PRs.
> 
> If RN is regarded as an afterthought and finished as a last-minute task, it
> is likely not written well.
> Instead of rushing, treating RN as a part of development not only reduces
> RM's workload and makes communication more coordinated,
> but also allows more time for us to choose the most valuable highlights
> shown to users.
> Consequently, the process of the current workflow should be improved.
> 
> Therefore, I propose the PIP 112: Generate Release Notes Automatically [2]
> and add some initial thoughts and research there.
> It is only a draft but I would like to invite you to join us to bring
> another major change to Pulsar. I believe this would bring many benefits to
> all of us, thanks!
> 
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/dl3jb9p3zvlc6ntlkpmxf1m8dw5dcd8z
> [2]
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-112%3A-Generate-Release-Notes-Automatically

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Marvin Cai

[PengHui Li]

Congrats Marvin.

Penghui

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 5:46 PM linlin  wrote:

> The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Marvin Cai
> https://github.com/MarvinCai to become a committer and we are pleased to
> announce that he has accepted.
>
> Marvin has joined the community for more than 1 year now and he is active
> in
> the Pulsar community for more than 6 months.
>
> Welcome and Congratulations, Marvin!
>
> Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Marvin onboard!
>
> Best Regards,
> Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
>

Re: CI is failing consistently due to maven.restlet.com

[PengHui Li]

Have you tried with this PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13248?

Penghui

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 6:42 PM Enrico Olivelli  wrote:

> I would change CI jobs by adding "
> -Dmaven.wagon.http.ssl.ignore.validity.dates=true"
>
> but that should considered some kind of security problem as we could
> download from bad https servers
>
> Enrico
>
>
> Il giorno lun 13 dic 2021 alle ore 11:35 Enrico Olivelli <
> eolive...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > Hello,
> > CI is failing due to an expired certificate on maven.restlet.com.
> >
> > I was waiting for CI to be green before cutting 2.9.1so sad !
> >
> > Error: Failed to execute goal on project pulsar-io-solr: Could not
> resolve
> > dependencies for project org.apache.pulsar:pulsar-io-solr:jar:2.9.0:
> Failed
> > to collect dependencies at org.apache.solr:solr-core:jar:8.6.3 ->
> > org.restlet.jee:org.restlet:jar:2.4.3: Failed to read artifact descriptor
> > for org.restlet.jee:org.restlet:jar:2.4.3: Could not transfer artifact
> > org.restlet.jee:org.restlet:pom:2.4.3 from/to maven-restlet (
> > https://maven.restlet.com): transfer failed for
> >
> https://maven.restlet.com/org/restlet/jee/org.restlet/2.4.3/org.restlet-2.4.3.pom
> :
> > PKIX path validation failed:
> java.security.cert.CertPathValidatorException:
> > validity check failed: NotAfter: Sat Dec 11 22:28:29 UTC 2021 -> [Help 1]
> >
> > Thoughts ?
> >
> > Enrico
> >
>

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Marvin Cai

[Lari Hotari]

Congrats Marvin, well deserved!

-Lari

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:46 AM linlin  wrote:

> The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Marvin Cai
> https://github.com/MarvinCai to become a committer and we are pleased to
> announce that he has accepted.
>
> Marvin has joined the community for more than 1 year now and he is active
> in
> the Pulsar community for more than 6 months.
>
> Welcome and Congratulations, Marvin!
>
> Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Marvin onboard!
>
> Best Regards,
> Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
>

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Marvin Cai

[Haiting Jiang]

Congrats!

---
Haiting Jiang

On 2021/12/13 09:46:10 linlin wrote:
> The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Marvin Cai
> https://github.com/MarvinCai to become a committer and we are pleased to
> announce that he has accepted.
> 
> Marvin has joined the community for more than 1 year now and he is active in
> the Pulsar community for more than 6 months.
> 
> Welcome and Congratulations, Marvin!
> 
> Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Marvin onboard!
> 
> Best Regards,
> Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
> 

RE: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Marvin Cai

[Ruguo Yu]

Congratulations!

Ruguo Yu

On 2021/12/13 09:46:10 linlin wrote:

> The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Marvin Cai

> https://github.com/MarvinCai to become a committer and we are pleased to

> announce that he has accepted.

> 

> Marvin has joined the community for more than 1 year now and he is active in

> the Pulsar community for more than 6 months.

> 

> Welcome and Congratulations, Marvin!

> 

> Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Marvin onboard!

> 

> Best Regards,

> Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC

> 

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Marvin Cai

[ZhangJian He]

Congratulations!

Thanks
ZhangJian He

Ruguo Yu  于2021年12月13日周一 20:11写道：

> Congratulations!
>
> Ruguo Yu
>
> On 2021/12/13 09:46:10 linlin wrote:
>
> > The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Marvin
> Cai
>
> > https://github.com/MarvinCai to become a committer and we are pleased to
>
> > announce that he has accepted.
>
> >
>
> > Marvin has joined the community for more than 1 year now and he is
> active in
>
> > the Pulsar community for more than 6 months.
>
> >
>
> > Welcome and Congratulations, Marvin!
>
> >
>
> > Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Marvin onboard!
>
> >
>
> > Best Regards,
>
> > Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
>
> >
>
>

Re: [Great News] Pulsar Hits 10,000 GitHub Stars Milestone!

[Joshua Odmark]

 I am not surprised you’re doubling down on what everyone is objecting to
you doing.

Thank you for admitting that you’re using your status as a PMC member for
financial gain.

On Dec 10, 2021 at 11:40:00 PM, Sijie Guo  wrote:

> Hi Joshua,
>
> Thanks for your response. Please allow me to clarify.
>
> First, I completely agree with you that SN != Pulsar. Although, I am also a
> bit wordless as to why you brought up such a salient point. In addition, I
> don't have any experience participating in the Kafka community, therefore I
> cannot opine on your assessment of the Kafka community.
>
> Second, there is no such thing as “inside access” because if you truly
> understand the Apache Way, all the decisions are carried out publicly and
> each PMC member can provide his/her thoughts. Then, the PMC can vote or
> reject any proposals. ANYONE can discuss any ideas and propose any topics
> with any PMC member regardless of where they work and bring the final
> proposal to discuss in the mailing list.
>
> Third, I’d like to iterate the response I provided to Chris: the SN program
> merely provides the opportunity for the participants to brainstorm ideas
> with the PMC members who are currently working at SN. It is worth noticing
> that the vast majority of the Pulsar PMC members do not even work for SN.
>
> Hope my responses clear things up a bit. Please Let me know if you have any
> further questions.
>
> Thanks,
> Sijie
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 8:16 PM Joshua Odmark  wrote:
>
>  I don’t think anyone is surprised that you, the CEO of SN, doesn’t see a
>
> problem with you conflating a program offered by your own commercial
>
> company, that in the exact same sentence, invites people to join a SN
>
> sponsored opportunity to work on the roadmap with the PMC. That is quite
>
> literally offering inside access through your commercial entity. You did it
>
> again in your response.
>
>
> I understand how decisions are made in ASF and I couldn’t think less of SN.
>
>
> It’s like me saying, I am good friends with the CEO of Ford Motor Company.
>
> If you want Ford Motor Company as a customer, you should join my Ford
>
> Ambassador Program. Ford would have a problem with that, and so should the
>
> PMC of Apache Pulsar.
>
>
> This is exactly what Confluent started doing with the Kafka community. They
>
> did everything they could to make Confluent == Kafka. Great for Confluent,
>
> terrible for the community.
>
>
> SN != Pulsar
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2021 at 7:25:29 PM, Sijie Guo  wrote:
>
>
> > Chris and Dave,
>
> >
>
> > Thank you for bringing the concern up. However, I don’t think the concern
>
> > of this tweet is valid, and also the complaint of “StreamNative controls
>
> > the roadmap” sounds ridiculous to me.
>
> >
>
> > First of all, under the Apache Way, PMC controls the roadmap.
>
> >
>
> > Lots of StreamNative team members are long-time ASF contributors. In
>
> > relation to adhering strictly to the ASF policy, we understand it very
>
> well
>
> > and we follow the Apache Way. To be more specific, as Dave mentioned in
>
> his
>
> > email, we understand that the Apache Way says “If it is not on the dev
>
> > list, it doesn’t happen”. That’s exactly how our team members make
>
> > contributions and participate in the community. We not only ask our team
>
> > members to follow the Apache Way, but also encourage our users,
>
> customers,
>
> > and partners to participate in the community in the same manner.
>
> >
>
> > To iterate, all the discussions/proposals made in the dev mailing list
>
> must
>
> > be approved/rejected by the PMC. Hence the PMC has the ultimate say (not
>
> > StreamNative) in the direction of the project. Your false accusation of
>
> > StreamNative controlling the roadmap indicates that either you don’t
>
> fully
>
> > understand how the decision is made in ASF or you think way too much of
>
> > StreamNative :)
>
> >
>
> > Secondly, EVERYONE can contribute to the project roadmap. PMC
>
> > approves/rejects proposals by casting its votes. This is how the ASF
>
> > community works and how the ASF maintains vendor-neutral. No one except
>
> PMC
>
> > controls the roadmap but EVERYONE has the freedom to propose and
>
> > contribute.
>
> >
>
> > To elaborate more on the process, every PMC member has the free right and
>
> > should be encouraged to talk to the broader community to discuss ideas.
>
> > They bring ideas back to the mailing list for discussion. We work with
>
> > Pulsar users and customers every day. We observe and learn what the users
>
> > are doing, discussing, and requesting. We then bring the ideas back as
>
> > proposals or encourage the users/customers to propose the ideas directly
>
> in
>
> > the mailing list which as discussed above, to be approved/rejected by the
>
> > PMC.
>
> >
>
> > At StreamNative, we are extremely fortunate to work with the PMC members,
>
> > committers, and contributors who help and guide people to contribute to
>
> the
>
> > project roadmap and empower t

Re: Status of Pulsar 2.9.0 and starting 2.9.1

[Sijie Guo]

Interesting ... I haven't received any announcement of 2.9.0.

Can I know what caused the delay?

- Sijie

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:32 PM Enrico Olivelli 
wrote:

> Dave,
> You are correct.
> Pulsar 2.9.0 has already been released and also some people already started
> to report issues.
> The docker images have been deployed and we cannot change them.
>
> I am finishing the release process for 2.9.0 with the website updates.
>
> I am preparing 2.9.1.
>
> I propose to just skip the announcement for 2.9.0.
>
> If we are quick during the VOTE we can close this story within the end of
> the week
>
> Enrico
>
> Il Lun 13 Dic 2021, 06:34 Dave Fisher  ha scritto:
>
> > (1) we have published 2.9.0 at
> > https://downloads.apache.org/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.0/
> >
> > (2) we have published 2.9.0 artifacts through maven central. They don’t
> > let anyone republish versions.
> >
> > There are no do overs on versions. We simply cannot redo 2.9.0 at this
> > moment.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Dave
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Dec 12, 2021, at 8:49 PM, Sijie Guo  wrote:
> > >
> > > My take is - if we haven't announced 2.9, I would suggest just redoing
> > the
> > > 2.9.0 release.
> > >
> > > - Sijie
> > >
> > >> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 6:35 PM Hang Chen 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I am a little confused about why we should skip 2.9.0 and not continue
> > >> to release 2.9.0 by including the critical bug fixes. In fact, the
> > >> Pulsar 2.9.0 release is not yet completed.
> > >>
> > >> For users, they will worry about whether the Pulsar release process is
> > >> standardized if we skip 2.9.0. They will also worry about the release
> > >> quality of Apache Pulsar if we have found the critical bugs before it
> > >> is released but not included it into the release version. For Pulsar
> > >> 2.9.0, it couldn't be deployed into the production environment due to
> > >> the critical bug https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12993
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Hang
> > >>
> > >> Dave Fisher  于2021年12月13日周一 09:40写道：
> > >>>
> > >>> It can be the case that releases are not announced. For example with
> > >> Tomcat a version which fails to pass the vote is skipped.
> > >>>
> > >>> Let’s not announce 2.9.0 and go on to 2.9.1.
> > >>>
> > >>> Maybe there’s some website fixes to hide 2.9.0.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Sent from my iPhone
> > >>>
> >  On Dec 12, 2021, at 5:28 PM, PengHui Li  wrote:
> > 
> >  Another point is we have not announced the 2.9.0 release yet.
> > 
> >  This will make users feel confused that a new release from the
> Pulsar
> >  community with the
> >  serious problem(log4j bug) but after the log4j has fixed the issue
> and
> >  provided the new release.
> > 
> >  I think we'd better contain the fix in 2.9.0 and 2.9.0 also has a
> > >> critical
> >  bug https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12993
> >  which will lead the topic stop to provide services for more than
> 5min.
> > >> It
> >  looks like, hey, we have a new release here but
> >  it has critical security issues and known serious bugs which will
> > >> seriously
> >  affect the core features.
> > 
> >  From the perspective of release, yes, the release vote has closed.
> But
> > >> I
> >  believe that users will not care about this matter,
> >  they only care about the quality of the products we provided.
> > 
> >  I would like to hear your views.
> > 
> >  Regards,
> >  Penghui
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 6:26 PM Enrico Olivelli <
> eolive...@gmail.com
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am starting 2.9.1 on Monday
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > > Il Dom 12 Dic 2021, 02:19 陳智弘  ha scritto:
> > >
> > >> Totally agree
> > >>
> > >>> PengHui Li  於 2021年12月12日 週日 08:28 寫道：
> > >>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>> Penghui
> > >>>
> > >>> Matteo Merli 于2021年12月11日 周六15:28写道：
> > >>>
> >  At this point, if 2.9.0 is non stable, I think we should
> > >> fast-forward
> >  to 2.9.1 which will include security fix. Though, we should
> start
> >  2.9.1 right now.
> > 
> > 
> >  --
> >  Matteo Merli
> >  
> > 
> >  On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 11:23 PM Michael Marshall <
> > >> mmarsh...@apache.org>
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 - thanks Enrico.
> > >
> > > - Michael
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 1:11 AM Lari Hotari <
> lhot...@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> la 11. jouluk. 2021 klo 9.07 Enrico Olivelli <
> > > eolive...@gmail.com>
> > >> kirjoitti:
> > >>
> > >>> Hello folks,
> > >>> Yesterday we committed the release notes for 2.9.0.
> > >>> I just have to publish a couple of other artifacts and update
> > > the
> >  website
> 

Re: Status of Pulsar 2.9.0 and starting 2.9.1

[Chris Herzog]

I'm 100% with Dave.  2.9.0 is released (it's up on Maven), if it's not
"announced", that's just a "publicity" effort because the 2.9.0 release is
out there.



On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:34 PM Dave Fisher  wrote:

> (1) we have published 2.9.0 at
> https://downloads.apache.org/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.0/
>
> (2) we have published 2.9.0 artifacts through maven central. They don’t
> let anyone republish versions.
>
> There are no do overs on versions. We simply cannot redo 2.9.0 at this
> moment.
>
> All the best,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Dec 12, 2021, at 8:49 PM, Sijie Guo  wrote:
> >
> > My take is - if we haven't announced 2.9, I would suggest just redoing
> the
> > 2.9.0 release.
> >
> > - Sijie
> >
> >> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 6:35 PM Hang Chen  wrote:
> >>
> >> I am a little confused about why we should skip 2.9.0 and not continue
> >> to release 2.9.0 by including the critical bug fixes. In fact, the
> >> Pulsar 2.9.0 release is not yet completed.
> >>
> >> For users, they will worry about whether the Pulsar release process is
> >> standardized if we skip 2.9.0. They will also worry about the release
> >> quality of Apache Pulsar if we have found the critical bugs before it
> >> is released but not included it into the release version. For Pulsar
> >> 2.9.0, it couldn't be deployed into the production environment due to
> >> the critical bug https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12993
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Hang
> >>
> >> Dave Fisher  于2021年12月13日周一 09:40写道：
> >>>
> >>> It can be the case that releases are not announced. For example with
> >> Tomcat a version which fails to pass the vote is skipped.
> >>>
> >>> Let’s not announce 2.9.0 and go on to 2.9.1.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe there’s some website fixes to hide 2.9.0.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
>  On Dec 12, 2021, at 5:28 PM, PengHui Li  wrote:
> 
>  Another point is we have not announced the 2.9.0 release yet.
> 
>  This will make users feel confused that a new release from the Pulsar
>  community with the
>  serious problem(log4j bug) but after the log4j has fixed the issue and
>  provided the new release.
> 
>  I think we'd better contain the fix in 2.9.0 and 2.9.0 also has a
> >> critical
>  bug https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12993
>  which will lead the topic stop to provide services for more than 5min.
> >> It
>  looks like, hey, we have a new release here but
>  it has critical security issues and known serious bugs which will
> >> seriously
>  affect the core features.
> 
>  From the perspective of release, yes, the release vote has closed. But
> >> I
>  believe that users will not care about this matter,
>  they only care about the quality of the products we provided.
> 
>  I would like to hear your views.
> 
>  Regards,
>  Penghui
> 
> 
> 
> > On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 6:26 PM Enrico Olivelli  >
> >> wrote:
> >
> > I am starting 2.9.1 on Monday
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> > Il Dom 12 Dic 2021, 02:19 陳智弘  ha scritto:
> >
> >> Totally agree
> >>
> >>> PengHui Li  於 2021年12月12日 週日 08:28 寫道：
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> Penghui
> >>>
> >>> Matteo Merli 于2021年12月11日 周六15:28写道：
> >>>
>  At this point, if 2.9.0 is non stable, I think we should
> >> fast-forward
>  to 2.9.1 which will include security fix. Though, we should start
>  2.9.1 right now.
> 
> 
>  --
>  Matteo Merli
>  
> 
>  On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 11:23 PM Michael Marshall <
> >> mmarsh...@apache.org>
>  wrote:
> >
> > +1 - thanks Enrico.
> >
> > - Michael
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 1:11 AM Lari Hotari 
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> la 11. jouluk. 2021 klo 9.07 Enrico Olivelli <
> > eolive...@gmail.com>
> >> kirjoitti:
> >>
> >>> Hello folks,
> >>> Yesterday we committed the release notes for 2.9.0.
> >>> I just have to publish a couple of other artifacts and update
> > the
>  website
> >>> before announcing 2.9.0.
> >>> My plan is to complete the procedure next week.
> >>>
> >>> In the meantime, early next week, I believe it is time to
> > prepare
>  the first
> >>> RC of 2.9.1, due to the log4j bug.
> >>>
> >>> If you are aware of problems on branch-2.9 or things to be
>  cherry-picked
> >>> because they are blocker please let me know.
> >>>
> >>> Otherwise if branch-2.9 is stable I will cut the RC from what
> > we
>  already
> >>> have now.
> >>>
> >>> I am volunteering as RM for 2.9.1 as I followed 2.9.0 and
> > release
> >>> is
> >>> basically non stable due to the bugs we discovered after
> >> 

Re: Status of Pulsar 2.9.0 and starting 2.9.1

[Sijie Guo]

I am fine with doing 2.9.1.

I am trying to understand what happened between released 2.9.0 and
announcing it.

It usually means there is a gap in the release process. We need to solve
the process. If it is RM's responsibility for announcing the release, it
should happen as soon as the release was cut. If the RM doesn't do it in
time, other committers or PMC members should jump on it to help. I feel
something was held up somewhere. But I don't know what is going on there.

- Sijie



On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 9:47 AM Chris Herzog 
wrote:

> I'm 100% with Dave.  2.9.0 is released (it's up on Maven), if it's not
> "announced", that's just a "publicity" effort because the 2.9.0 release is
> out there.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:34 PM Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
>
> > (1) we have published 2.9.0 at
> > https://downloads.apache.org/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.0/
> >
> > (2) we have published 2.9.0 artifacts through maven central. They don’t
> > let anyone republish versions.
> >
> > There are no do overs on versions. We simply cannot redo 2.9.0 at this
> > moment.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Dave
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Dec 12, 2021, at 8:49 PM, Sijie Guo  wrote:
> > >
> > > My take is - if we haven't announced 2.9, I would suggest just redoing
> > the
> > > 2.9.0 release.
> > >
> > > - Sijie
> > >
> > >> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 6:35 PM Hang Chen 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I am a little confused about why we should skip 2.9.0 and not continue
> > >> to release 2.9.0 by including the critical bug fixes. In fact, the
> > >> Pulsar 2.9.0 release is not yet completed.
> > >>
> > >> For users, they will worry about whether the Pulsar release process is
> > >> standardized if we skip 2.9.0. They will also worry about the release
> > >> quality of Apache Pulsar if we have found the critical bugs before it
> > >> is released but not included it into the release version. For Pulsar
> > >> 2.9.0, it couldn't be deployed into the production environment due to
> > >> the critical bug https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12993
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Hang
> > >>
> > >> Dave Fisher  于2021年12月13日周一 09:40写道：
> > >>>
> > >>> It can be the case that releases are not announced. For example with
> > >> Tomcat a version which fails to pass the vote is skipped.
> > >>>
> > >>> Let’s not announce 2.9.0 and go on to 2.9.1.
> > >>>
> > >>> Maybe there’s some website fixes to hide 2.9.0.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Sent from my iPhone
> > >>>
> >  On Dec 12, 2021, at 5:28 PM, PengHui Li  wrote:
> > 
> >  Another point is we have not announced the 2.9.0 release yet.
> > 
> >  This will make users feel confused that a new release from the
> Pulsar
> >  community with the
> >  serious problem(log4j bug) but after the log4j has fixed the issue
> and
> >  provided the new release.
> > 
> >  I think we'd better contain the fix in 2.9.0 and 2.9.0 also has a
> > >> critical
> >  bug https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12993
> >  which will lead the topic stop to provide services for more than
> 5min.
> > >> It
> >  looks like, hey, we have a new release here but
> >  it has critical security issues and known serious bugs which will
> > >> seriously
> >  affect the core features.
> > 
> >  From the perspective of release, yes, the release vote has closed.
> But
> > >> I
> >  believe that users will not care about this matter,
> >  they only care about the quality of the products we provided.
> > 
> >  I would like to hear your views.
> > 
> >  Regards,
> >  Penghui
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 6:26 PM Enrico Olivelli <
> eolive...@gmail.com
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >
> > > I am starting 2.9.1 on Monday
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > > Il Dom 12 Dic 2021, 02:19 陳智弘  ha scritto:
> > >
> > >> Totally agree
> > >>
> > >>> PengHui Li  於 2021年12月12日 週日 08:28 寫道：
> > >>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>> Penghui
> > >>>
> > >>> Matteo Merli 于2021年12月11日 周六15:28写道：
> > >>>
> >  At this point, if 2.9.0 is non stable, I think we should
> > >> fast-forward
> >  to 2.9.1 which will include security fix. Though, we should
> start
> >  2.9.1 right now.
> > 
> > 
> >  --
> >  Matteo Merli
> >  
> > 
> >  On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 11:23 PM Michael Marshall <
> > >> mmarsh...@apache.org>
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 - thanks Enrico.
> > >
> > > - Michael
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 1:11 AM Lari Hotari <
> lhot...@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> la 11. jouluk. 2021 klo 9.07 Enrico Olivelli <
> > > eolive...@gmail.com>
> > >> kirjoitti:
> > >>
> > >>> Hello folks,
> > >>> Yesterday we committed the release notes for 2.9.0.
> > >

Re: Status of Pulsar 2.9.0 and starting 2.9.1

[Dave Fisher]

> On Dec 13, 2021, at 9:57 AM, Sijie Guo  wrote:
> 
> I am fine with doing 2.9.1.
> 
> I am trying to understand what happened between released 2.9.0 and
> announcing it.
> 
> It usually means there is a gap in the release process. We need to solve
> the process. If it is RM's responsibility for announcing the release, it
> should happen as soon as the release was cut. If the RM doesn't do it in
> time, other committers or PMC members should jump on it to help. I feel
> something was held up somewhere. But I don't know what is going on there.

See the thread regarding release notes - 
https://lists.apache.org/thread/sszycc3zjxkdqd9x5f16108qn0x7w5g1

Regards,
Dave
> 
> - Sijie
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 9:47 AM Chris Herzog 
> wrote:
> 
>> I'm 100% with Dave.  2.9.0 is released (it's up on Maven), if it's not
>> "announced", that's just a "publicity" effort because the 2.9.0 release is
>> out there.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:34 PM Dave Fisher 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> (1) we have published 2.9.0 at
>>> https://downloads.apache.org/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.0/
>>> 
>>> (2) we have published 2.9.0 artifacts through maven central. They don’t
>>> let anyone republish versions.
>>> 
>>> There are no do overs on versions. We simply cannot redo 2.9.0 at this
>>> moment.
>>> 
>>> All the best,
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
 On Dec 12, 2021, at 8:49 PM, Sijie Guo  wrote:
 
 My take is - if we haven't announced 2.9, I would suggest just redoing
>>> the
 2.9.0 release.
 
 - Sijie
 
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 6:35 PM Hang Chen 
>> wrote:
> 
> I am a little confused about why we should skip 2.9.0 and not continue
> to release 2.9.0 by including the critical bug fixes. In fact, the
> Pulsar 2.9.0 release is not yet completed.
> 
> For users, they will worry about whether the Pulsar release process is
> standardized if we skip 2.9.0. They will also worry about the release
> quality of Apache Pulsar if we have found the critical bugs before it
> is released but not included it into the release version. For Pulsar
> 2.9.0, it couldn't be deployed into the production environment due to
> the critical bug https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12993
> 
> Regards,
> Hang
> 
> Dave Fisher  于2021年12月13日周一 09:40写道：
>> 
>> It can be the case that releases are not announced. For example with
> Tomcat a version which fails to pass the vote is skipped.
>> 
>> Let’s not announce 2.9.0 and go on to 2.9.1.
>> 
>> Maybe there’s some website fixes to hide 2.9.0.
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Dec 12, 2021, at 5:28 PM, PengHui Li  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Another point is we have not announced the 2.9.0 release yet.
>>> 
>>> This will make users feel confused that a new release from the
>> Pulsar
>>> community with the
>>> serious problem(log4j bug) but after the log4j has fixed the issue
>> and
>>> provided the new release.
>>> 
>>> I think we'd better contain the fix in 2.9.0 and 2.9.0 also has a
> critical
>>> bug https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12993
>>> which will lead the topic stop to provide services for more than
>> 5min.
> It
>>> looks like, hey, we have a new release here but
>>> it has critical security issues and known serious bugs which will
> seriously
>>> affect the core features.
>>> 
>>> From the perspective of release, yes, the release vote has closed.
>> But
> I
>>> believe that users will not care about this matter,
>>> they only care about the quality of the products we provided.
>>> 
>>> I would like to hear your views.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Penghui
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 6:26 PM Enrico Olivelli <
>> eolive...@gmail.com
 
> wrote:
 
 I am starting 2.9.1 on Monday
 
 Enrico
 
 Il Dom 12 Dic 2021, 02:19 陳智弘  ha scritto:
 
> Totally agree
> 
>> PengHui Li  於 2021年12月12日 週日 08:28 寫道：
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> Penghui
>> 
>> Matteo Merli 于2021年12月11日 周六15:28写道：
>> 
>>> At this point, if 2.9.0 is non stable, I think we should
> fast-forward
>>> to 2.9.1 which will include security fix. Though, we should
>> start
>>> 2.9.1 right now.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Matteo Merli
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 11:23 PM Michael Marshall <
> mmarsh...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
 
 +1 - thanks Enrico.
 
 - Michael
 
 On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 1:11 AM Lari Hotari <
>> lhot...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> la 11. jouluk. 2021 klo 9.07 Enrico Olivelli <
 eol

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Marvin Cai

[Michael Marshall]

Congratulations Marvin!

- Michael

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 6:06 AM Haiting Jiang  wrote:
>
> Congrats!
>
> ---
> Haiting Jiang
>
> On 2021/12/13 09:46:10 linlin wrote:
> > The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Marvin Cai
> > https://github.com/MarvinCai to become a committer and we are pleased to
> > announce that he has accepted.
> >
> > Marvin has joined the community for more than 1 year now and he is active in
> > the Pulsar community for more than 6 months.
> >
> > Welcome and Congratulations, Marvin!
> >
> > Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Marvin onboard!
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
> >

Re: Status of Pulsar 2.9.0 and starting 2.9.1

[Sijie Guo]

Thank you for sharing that!

I think we should separate discussing a process from finishing a release.
In other words, we shouldn't block on a process in order to finish a
release.

We should use the old process to finish a release while discussing a
process to improve the release notes process.

- Sijie

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:04 AM Dave Fisher  wrote:

>
>
> > On Dec 13, 2021, at 9:57 AM, Sijie Guo  wrote:
> >
> > I am fine with doing 2.9.1.
> >
> > I am trying to understand what happened between released 2.9.0 and
> > announcing it.
> >
> > It usually means there is a gap in the release process. We need to solve
> > the process. If it is RM's responsibility for announcing the release, it
> > should happen as soon as the release was cut. If the RM doesn't do it in
> > time, other committers or PMC members should jump on it to help. I feel
> > something was held up somewhere. But I don't know what is going on there.
>
> See the thread regarding release notes -
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/sszycc3zjxkdqd9x5f16108qn0x7w5g1
>
> Regards,
> Dave
> >
> > - Sijie
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 9:47 AM Chris Herzog 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I'm 100% with Dave.  2.9.0 is released (it's up on Maven), if it's not
> >> "announced", that's just a "publicity" effort because the 2.9.0 release
> is
> >> out there.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:34 PM Dave Fisher 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> (1) we have published 2.9.0 at
> >>> https://downloads.apache.org/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.0/
> >>>
> >>> (2) we have published 2.9.0 artifacts through maven central. They don’t
> >>> let anyone republish versions.
> >>>
> >>> There are no do overs on versions. We simply cannot redo 2.9.0 at this
> >>> moment.
> >>>
> >>> All the best,
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
>  On Dec 12, 2021, at 8:49 PM, Sijie Guo  wrote:
> 
>  My take is - if we haven't announced 2.9, I would suggest just
> redoing
> >>> the
>  2.9.0 release.
> 
>  - Sijie
> 
> > On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 6:35 PM Hang Chen 
> >> wrote:
> >
> > I am a little confused about why we should skip 2.9.0 and not
> continue
> > to release 2.9.0 by including the critical bug fixes. In fact, the
> > Pulsar 2.9.0 release is not yet completed.
> >
> > For users, they will worry about whether the Pulsar release process
> is
> > standardized if we skip 2.9.0. They will also worry about the release
> > quality of Apache Pulsar if we have found the critical bugs before it
> > is released but not included it into the release version. For Pulsar
> > 2.9.0, it couldn't be deployed into the production environment due to
> > the critical bug https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12993
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hang
> >
> > Dave Fisher  于2021年12月13日周一 09:40写道：
> >>
> >> It can be the case that releases are not announced. For example with
> > Tomcat a version which fails to pass the vote is skipped.
> >>
> >> Let’s not announce 2.9.0 and go on to 2.9.1.
> >>
> >> Maybe there’s some website fixes to hide 2.9.0.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>> On Dec 12, 2021, at 5:28 PM, PengHui Li 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Another point is we have not announced the 2.9.0 release yet.
> >>>
> >>> This will make users feel confused that a new release from the
> >> Pulsar
> >>> community with the
> >>> serious problem(log4j bug) but after the log4j has fixed the issue
> >> and
> >>> provided the new release.
> >>>
> >>> I think we'd better contain the fix in 2.9.0 and 2.9.0 also has a
> > critical
> >>> bug https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12993
> >>> which will lead the topic stop to provide services for more than
> >> 5min.
> > It
> >>> looks like, hey, we have a new release here but
> >>> it has critical security issues and known serious bugs which will
> > seriously
> >>> affect the core features.
> >>>
> >>> From the perspective of release, yes, the release vote has closed.
> >> But
> > I
> >>> believe that users will not care about this matter,
> >>> they only care about the quality of the products we provided.
> >>>
> >>> I would like to hear your views.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Penghui
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>  On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 6:26 PM Enrico Olivelli <
> >> eolive...@gmail.com
> 
> > wrote:
> 
>  I am starting 2.9.1 on Monday
> 
>  Enrico
> 
>  Il Dom 12 Dic 2021, 02:19 陳智弘  ha scritto:
> 
> > Totally agree
> >
> >> PengHui Li  於 2021年12月12日 週日 08:28 寫道：
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Penghui
> >>
> >> Matteo Merli 于2021年12月11日 周六15:28写道：
> >>
> >>> At this point, if 2.9.0 is non stable, I think we should
> > fast-forward
> >>> to 2.9.1 whic

Re: PIP 112: Generate Release Notes Automatically

[Michael Marshall]

+1  Yu, thank you for putting together this thorough document. This is
a great initiative.

I think it might help to review and possibly update the PR template as
part of this PIP. For example, the current template does not prompt
authors whether the PR should be mentioned in release notes. Such a
prompt could help committers determine the right labels for a PR.

Thanks,
Michael

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 4:56 AM Li Li  wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Good idea, I think I can be part of this PIP after I finished upgrading 
> pulsar website.
>
> Thanks,
> LiLi
>
> > On Dec 13, 2021, at 4:18 PM, Yu  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Pulsarers,
> >
> > As we know[1], there are some issues in the current Pulsar release notes
> > (RN), for example:
> >
> > - For Pulsar users
> > They cannot capture the highlights quickly since the RN is a raw dump of
> > PRs.
> >
> > - For Pulsar release managers (RM)
> > They feel overwhelmed by the **manual** workload of generating RN since it
> > is created based on git commit messages, while many people do not provide
> > clear and meaningful info.
> > It’s time-consuming to clear up all info especially for a major release
> > with lots of PRs.
> >
> > If RN is regarded as an afterthought and finished as a last-minute task, it
> > is likely not written well.
> > Instead of rushing, treating RN as a part of development not only reduces
> > RM's workload and makes communication more coordinated,
> > but also allows more time for us to choose the most valuable highlights
> > shown to users.
> > Consequently, the process of the current workflow should be improved.
> >
> > Therefore, I propose the PIP 112: Generate Release Notes Automatically [2]
> > and add some initial thoughts and research there.
> > It is only a draft but I would like to invite you to join us to bring
> > another major change to Pulsar. I believe this would bring many benefits to
> > all of us, thanks!
> >
> > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/dl3jb9p3zvlc6ntlkpmxf1m8dw5dcd8z
> > [2]
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-112%3A-Generate-Release-Notes-Automatically
>

Re: [Great News] Pulsar Hits 10,000 GitHub Stars Milestone!

[Dave Fisher]

Hi Joshua,

Thank you for amplifying the main issue.

> On Dec 13, 2021, at 8:33 AM, Joshua Odmark  wrote:
>
> I am not surprised you’re doubling down on what everyone is objecting to
> you doing.
>
> Thank you for admitting that you’re using your status as a PMC member for
> financial gain.

Emphasizing PMC as a marker of status instead of responsibility is precisely 
the issue here.

SIJIE:

Here is a resource on the Apache website about this issue:

https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#hats

Unless you need to speak for the project (e.g. reaching out about trademark 
usage), all activity is always as an individual. The problem right now is that 
some are using their PMC member’s hat in the wrong way. The PMC needs to make 
decisions by consensus and that is not always happening:

https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#decision-making

>
> On Dec 10, 2021 at 11:40:00 PM, Sijie Guo  wrote:
>
>> Hi Joshua,
>>
>> Thanks for your response. Please allow me to clarify.
>>
>> First, I completely agree with you that SN != Pulsar. Although, I am also a
>> bit wordless as to why you brought up such a salient point. In addition, I
>> don't have any experience participating in the Kafka community, therefore I
>> cannot opine on your assessment of the Kafka community.
>>
>> Second, there is no such thing as “inside access” because if you truly
>> understand the Apache Way, all the decisions are carried out publicly and
>> each PMC member can provide his/her thoughts. Then, the PMC can vote or
>> reject any proposals. ANYONE can discuss any ideas and propose any topics
>> with any PMC member regardless of where they work and bring the final
>> proposal to discuss in the mailing list.

(1) See the decision making reference. The whole community decides by LAZY 
CONSENSUS. The PMC (as a whole) uses binding votes only when needed, but the 
opinion of the whole community - anyone who is here on the dev@pulsar mailing 
list needs to be considered.

(2) Let’s review https://streamnative.io/ambassador/ and I’ll explain what is 
inconsistent with The Apache Way.

- At the top, "[StreamNative Ambassador Program 2022] Join the program for the 
opportunity to work directly with Pulsar PMC members, contribute to the project 
roadmap, and more!” When you are working for a company you are not in the PMC 
role. The PMC is a whole. You cannot make this claim for this program.

- Why be an SN Ambassador “… Pulsar community leaders and engineers, the 
opportunity to contribute to the project roadmap, and much more” It is not 
correct for SN to be a middle man for Community development. Now if you want to 
teach Ambassadors how to contribute to the whole community that could be better 
explained.

- "The opportunity to work directly with Pulsar and StreamNative developers and 
founders”. You can’t make this claim for Pulsar.

- "The support of the Pulsar and StreamNative communities”. You don’t have 
support of the Pulsar community.

- "Front row access to the Pulsar roadmap”. This is simply false. 
dev@pulsar.apache.org is front row access. THIS IS AN OPEN SOURCE APACHE 
PROJECT!

>>
>> Third, I’d like to iterate the response I provided to Chris: the SN program
>> merely provides the opportunity for the participants to brainstorm ideas
>> with the PMC members who are currently working at SN. It is worth noticing
>> that the vast majority of the Pulsar PMC members do not even work for SN.

Exactly. And this is why SN must claim they are acting as PMC members while 
working at SN. When they are here in the open community they do wear that hat, 
but only when needed.


>>
>> Hope my responses clear things up a bit. Please Let me know if you have any
>> further questions.

I hope you understand “hats" better now.

If not then escalations for this situation are warranted.

Regards,
Dave


>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Sijie
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 8:16 PM Joshua Odmark  wrote:
>> 
>> I don’t think anyone is surprised that you, the CEO of SN, doesn’t see a
>> 
>> problem with you conflating a program offered by your own commercial
>> 
>> company, that in the exact same sentence, invites people to join a SN
>> 
>> sponsored opportunity to work on the roadmap with the PMC. That is quite
>> 
>> literally offering inside access through your commercial entity. You did it
>> 
>> again in your response.
>> 
>> 
>> I understand how decisions are made in ASF and I couldn’t think less of SN.
>> 
>> 
>> It’s like me saying, I am good friends with the CEO of Ford Motor Company.
>> 
>> If you want Ford Motor Company as a customer, you should join my Ford
>> 
>> Ambassador Program. Ford would have a problem with that, and so should the
>> 
>> PMC of Apache Pulsar.
>> 
>> 
>> This is exactly what Confluent started doing with the Kafka community. They
>> 
>> did everything they could to make Confluent == Kafka. Great for Confluent,
>> 
>> terrible for the community.
>> 
>> 
>> SN != Pulsar
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 10, 2021 at 7:25:29 PM, Siji

Log4j2 Zero Day vulnerability (CVE-2021-44228)

[Dave Fisher]

Please see the blog post @ https://pulsar.apache.org/blog/

December 11, 2021

Matteo Merli
 <>
Yesterday, a new serious vulnerability was reported regarding Log4j that can 
allow remote execution for attackers.

The vulnerability issue is described and tracked under CVE-2021-44228 
.

Current releases of Apache Pulsar are bundling Log4j2 versions that are 
affected by this vulnerability. We strongly recommend to follow the advisory of 
the Apache Log4j community and patch your systems as soon as possible.

There are 2 workarounds to patch a Pulsar deployments. You can set either of:

Java property: -Dlog4j2.formatMsgNoLookups=true
Environment variable: LOG4J_FORMAT_MSG_NO_LOOKUPS=true
Both approaches are effective in mitigating the vulnerability for Pulsar 
services.

Additionally, when running Pulsar Functions with Kubernetes runtime, you should 
update your Docker images, following the example described here 
.

If you are using the Pulsar Helm Chart for deploying in Kubernetes, a new 
version of the chart 
 is 
already available and it applies the above mentioned workaround.

We are already preparing new patch releases, 2.7.4, 2.8.2 and 2.9.1. These 
releases will be ready in the next few days and will bundle the Log4j2 2.15.0, 
which contains the vulnerability fix.

Re: [Great News] Pulsar Hits 10,000 GitHub Stars Milestone!

[Joshua Eric]

That is an additional problem, that a PMC member doesn’t see an issue with
an SN employee promoting a new SN hire.

At least half a dozen people join the community daily. Why aren’t we
celebrating all of them? No offense, but why is Dave special?

Chris, couldn’t have said it better myself.

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 1:00 PM Sijie Guo  wrote:

> I don't understand what is the problem with that email title.
>
> I thought that's Yu invited a co-worker to participate in the Pulsar
> community. There is no announcement. But I will let Yu clarify here.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 12:43 PM Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 10, 2021, at 11:10 AM, Sijie Guo  wrote:
> > >
> > >> I also think it is a misuse of the developer list to specifically
> > announce
> > > new community members that just so happen to be recent SN hires.
> > >
> > > What do you mean by "announce new community members"?
> >
> > The email with the subject: "Welcome Dave Duggins to Pulsar community!"
> >
> > >
> > > - Sijie
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 10:02 AM Joshua Eric 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I agree with Dave.
> > >>
> > >> I also think it is a misuse of the developer list to specifically
> > announce
> > >> new community members that just so happen to be recent SN hires.
> > >>
> > >> On Dec 9, 2021 at 3:24:29 PM, Sijie Guo  wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Dave - I don't think SN presents the community. We just shared out
> > >> insights
> > >>> on community progress. Also, if you looked into our past blog posts,
> we
> > >>> have been pointing people to the Pulsar website and Slack channel.
> > >>>
> > >>> - Sijie
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 12:13 PM Dave Fisher  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> OK. I see the new name.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> My concern is about SN posting blogs that are about community news
> > >> without
> > >>>
> > >>> telling readers where the whole Pulsar community can be found.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >  On Dec 9, 2021, at 6:18 AM, Dianjin Wang  > >> .INVALID
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>>
> >  I want to sync the blog status, the update has been done.
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>>
> >  Best,
> > >>>
> >  Dianjin Wang
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>>
> >  On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 2:34 PM Sijie Guo 
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>>
> > > Hi Dave,
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>>
> > > Will follow up tomorrow morning (Pacific Time).
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>>
> > > - Sijie
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>>
> > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 9:35 PM Dave Fisher 
> > >>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >
> > >>>
> > >> Hi Sijie,
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >> Thanks for handling this issue. I’ll check in my morning. There
> was
> > a
> > >>>
> > >> reference on the Community Newsletter as well. Please check that
> > too.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >> Best Regards,
> > >>>
> > >> Dave
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >> Sent from my iPhone
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Dec 8, 2021, at 9:24 PM, Sijie Guo 
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Dave,
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I think that is a mistake. We already caught it. Dianjin is
> fixing
> > >> it.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> - Sijie
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >  On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 11:41 AM Dave Fisher 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>>
> >  This is great news!
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>>
> >  However the ending of the blog post [1] does not follow the
> Apache
> > >>>
> > >>> Way
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>>
> >  This bullet point is misleading and serves to split the
> community.
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>>
> > > • Join the 2022 Pulsar Ambassador Program and work directly
> with
> > >>>
> > > Pulsar
> > >>>
> >  PMCs and top contributors to co-host events, promote new project
> > >>>
> > >> updates,
> > >>>
> >  and build the Pulsar community in your city. Contact Us:
> > >>>
> >  ambassa...@streamnative.io
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>>
> >  (1) This mailing list (dev@pulsar.apache.org) is the one and
> only
> > >>>
> > > place
> > >>>
> >  to work directly with the whole of the Apache Pulsar community.
> > >>>
> >  (2) If you engage in this unofficial, vendor-specific
> “Ambassador”
> > >>>
> > >> program
> > >>>
> >  you are not growing the whole and miss connecting with most of
> the
> > >>>
> > > true
> > >>>
> >  Apache Pulsar community.
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>>
> >  Please rewrite or remove this divisive bullet point.
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>>
> >  Here is a blog post about how Apache is supposed to work. [2]
> And
> > >>>
> > >>> more
> > >>>
> >  about the Apache Way [3]
> > >>>
> > 
> > >>>
> >  FYI - PMCs is plural for PMC. Apache Pulsar is one of 200+
> Apache
> > >>>
> > > PMCs.
> > >>>
> >  PMC’s have mem

Re: PIP 112: Generate Release Notes Automatically

[Leo]

+1

Good idea, I think I can be part of this PIP after I finished upgrading pulsar 
website.

Thanks,
Leo


> On Dec 13, 2021, at 4:18 PM, Yu  wrote:
> 
> Hi Pulsarers,
> 
> As we know[1], there are some issues in the current Pulsar release notes
> (RN), for example:
> 
> - For Pulsar users
> They cannot capture the highlights quickly since the RN is a raw dump of
> PRs.
> 
> - For Pulsar release managers (RM)
> They feel overwhelmed by the **manual** workload of generating RN since it
> is created based on git commit messages, while many people do not provide
> clear and meaningful info.
> It’s time-consuming to clear up all info especially for a major release
> with lots of PRs.
> 
> If RN is regarded as an afterthought and finished as a last-minute task, it
> is likely not written well.
> Instead of rushing, treating RN as a part of development not only reduces
> RM's workload and makes communication more coordinated,
> but also allows more time for us to choose the most valuable highlights
> shown to users.
> Consequently, the process of the current workflow should be improved.
> 
> Therefore, I propose the PIP 112: Generate Release Notes Automatically [2]
> and add some initial thoughts and research there.
> It is only a draft but I would like to invite you to join us to bring
> another major change to Pulsar. I believe this would bring many benefits to
> all of us, thanks!
> 
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/dl3jb9p3zvlc6ntlkpmxf1m8dw5dcd8z
> [2]
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-112%3A-Generate-Release-Notes-Automatically

Re: [Great News] Pulsar Hits 10,000 GitHub Stars Milestone!

[Chris Latimer]

Hi Sijie,

I only see one of two possible explanations for your latest responses in
this thread.

Either you legitimately don't see how SN's marketing is tantamount to
influence pedaling and how it's at odds with The Apache Way. That would be
deeply concerning given that the problem is immediately evident to every
non-SN person who has commented on the subject. As a PMC member the
community counts on you to uphold Apache brand guidelines and policies and
you would certainly be failing in your duties if you are genuinely unable
to understand why there is a problem here.

The other explanation is that you understand perfectly well what the
problem is, but refuse to acknowledge it and refuse to take action to fix
the situation. This is even more concerning since it suggests that you are
willing to abuse your position on the PMC to advance your own business
interests at the expense of the community. Even worse, you're willing to
misrepresent and deceive the community with disingenuous explanations in
order to do so.

Frankly, either of these explanations call into question your fitness to
carry out your duties as a PMC member for this project and to represent the
Apache Pulsar community in your current capacity.

Chris

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 12:44 PM Joshua Eric  wrote:

> That is an additional problem, that a PMC member doesn’t see an issue with
> an SN employee promoting a new SN hire.
>
> At least half a dozen people join the community daily. Why aren’t we
> celebrating all of them? No offense, but why is Dave special?
>
> Chris, couldn’t have said it better myself.
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 1:00 PM Sijie Guo  wrote:
>
> > I don't understand what is the problem with that email title.
> >
> > I thought that's Yu invited a co-worker to participate in the Pulsar
> > community. There is no announcement. But I will let Yu clarify here.
> >
> > - Sijie
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 12:43 PM Dave Fisher  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Dec 10, 2021, at 11:10 AM, Sijie Guo  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I also think it is a misuse of the developer list to specifically
> > > announce
> > > > new community members that just so happen to be recent SN hires.
> > > >
> > > > What do you mean by "announce new community members"?
> > >
> > > The email with the subject: "Welcome Dave Duggins to Pulsar community!"
> > >
> > > >
> > > > - Sijie
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 10:02 AM Joshua Eric 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I agree with Dave.
> > > >>
> > > >> I also think it is a misuse of the developer list to specifically
> > > announce
> > > >> new community members that just so happen to be recent SN hires.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Dec 9, 2021 at 3:24:29 PM, Sijie Guo  wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Dave - I don't think SN presents the community. We just shared out
> > > >> insights
> > > >>> on community progress. Also, if you looked into our past blog
> posts,
> > we
> > > >>> have been pointing people to the Pulsar website and Slack channel.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> - Sijie
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 12:13 PM Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> OK. I see the new name.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> My concern is about SN posting blogs that are about community news
> > > >> without
> > > >>>
> > > >>> telling readers where the whole Pulsar community can be found.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > >  On Dec 9, 2021, at 6:18 AM, Dianjin Wang  > > >> .INVALID
> > > 
> > > >>>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > 
> > > >>>
> > >  I want to sync the blog status, the update has been done.
> > > >>>
> > > 
> > > >>>
> > >  Best,
> > > >>>
> > >  Dianjin Wang
> > > >>>
> > > 
> > > >>>
> > > 
> > > >>>
> > >  On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 2:34 PM Sijie Guo 
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > 
> > > >>>
> > > > Hi Dave,
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >>>
> > > > Will follow up tomorrow morning (Pacific Time).
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >>>
> > > > - Sijie
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >>>
> > > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 9:35 PM Dave Fisher <
> wave4d...@comcast.net>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >>>
> > > >> Hi Sijie,
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >> Thanks for handling this issue. I’ll check in my morning. There
> > was
> > > a
> > > >>>
> > > >> reference on the Community Newsletter as well. Please check that
> > > too.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >> Best Regards,
> > > >>>
> > > >> Dave
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >> Sent from my iPhone
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Dec 8, 2021, at 9:24 PM, Sijie Guo 
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Dave,
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think that is a mistake. We already caught it. Dianjin is
> > fixing
> > > >> it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> - Sijie
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > >  On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 11:41 AM Dave Fisher 
> > > >

[GitHub] [pulsar-helm-chart] sijie commented on a change in pull request #181: [Istio] Kill istio proxy when container has completed

[GitBox]

sijie commented on a change in pull request #181:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/pull/181#discussion_r768211745



##
File path: charts/pulsar/templates/bookkeeper-cluster-initialize.yaml
##
@@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ spec:
 {{- end }}
 bin/bookkeeper shell initnewcluster;
 fi
+{{- if .Values.istio.enabled }}

Review comment:
   I would suggest a different approach:
   
   Can you just introduce a setting called `extraInitCommand`? So you can 
include this in the init container. Then you can add this command to your 
values file. This provides better extensibility to the helm chart.




-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

Re: Log4j2 Zero Day vulnerability (CVE-2021-44228)

[Sijie Guo]

I have updated the blog post in
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13274/files

*If upgrading is not an option, you may also mitigate by adding
`-Dlog4j2.formatMsgNoLookups=true` to the `PUSLAR_EXTRA_OPTS` in the
`configData` section for proxy, broker, bookkeeper, zookeeper,
auto-recovery, and relative components in the helm values file.*

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:38 AM Dave Fisher  wrote:

> Please see the blog post @ https://pulsar.apache.org/blog/
>
> December 11, 2021
>
> Matteo Merli
>  <>
> Yesterday, a new serious vulnerability was reported regarding Log4j that
> can allow remote execution for attackers.
>
> The vulnerability issue is described and tracked under CVE-2021-44228 <
> https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-44228>.
>
> Current releases of Apache Pulsar are bundling Log4j2 versions that are
> affected by this vulnerability. We strongly recommend to follow the
> advisory of the Apache Log4j community and patch your systems as soon as
> possible.
>
> There are 2 workarounds to patch a Pulsar deployments. You can set either
> of:
>
> Java property: -Dlog4j2.formatMsgNoLookups=true
> Environment variable: LOG4J_FORMAT_MSG_NO_LOOKUPS=true
> Both approaches are effective in mitigating the vulnerability for Pulsar
> services.
>
> Additionally, when running Pulsar Functions with Kubernetes runtime, you
> should update your Docker images, following the example described here <
> https://github.com/lhotari/pulsar-docker-images-patch-CVE-2021-44228>.
>
> If you are using the Pulsar Helm Chart for deploying in Kubernetes, a new
> version of the chart <
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/releases/tag/pulsar-2.7.6> is
> already available and it applies the above mentioned workaround.
>
> We are already preparing new patch releases, 2.7.4, 2.8.2 and 2.9.1. These
> releases will be ready in the next few days and will bundle the Log4j2
> 2.15.0, which contains the vulnerability fix.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Marvin Cai

[Huanli Meng]

Congratulations Marvin!

BR//Huanli

> On Dec 13, 2021, at 5:46 PM, linlin  wrote:
> 
> The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Marvin Cai
> https://github.com/MarvinCai to become a committer and we are pleased to
> announce that he has accepted.
> 
> Marvin has joined the community for more than 1 year now and he is active in
> the Pulsar community for more than 6 months.
> 
> Welcome and Congratulations, Marvin!
> 
> Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Marvin onboard!
> 
> Best Regards,
> Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Marvin Cai

[Guangning E]

Configrats!

Thanks,
Guangning

Huanli Meng  于2021年12月14日周二 08:34写道：

> Congratulations Marvin!
>
> BR//Huanli
>
> > On Dec 13, 2021, at 5:46 PM, linlin  wrote:
> >
> > The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Marvin
> Cai
> > https://github.com/MarvinCai to become a committer and we are pleased to
> > announce that he has accepted.
> >
> > Marvin has joined the community for more than 1 year now and he is
> active in
> > the Pulsar community for more than 6 months.
> >
> > Welcome and Congratulations, Marvin!
> >
> > Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Marvin onboard!
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
>
>

Log4j 2.16.0 a more complete fix to Log4Shell

[Dave Fisher]

https://lists.apache.org/thread/d6v4r6nosxysyq9rvnr779336yf0woz4

Re: [Vote] PIP 106: Pulsar Broker extensions for operators of enterprise-wide clusters

[Matteo Merli]

+1


--
Matteo Merli


On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 7:36 PM Hang Chen  wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Hang
>
> Li Li  于2021年12月10日周五 09:24写道：
> >
> > +1
> >
> > > On Dec 10, 2021, at 8:45 AM, Sijie Guo  wrote:
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:27 AM Narayanan, Madhavan
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Pulsar Community,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I would like to start a VOTE on the Pulsar Broker extensions for 
> > >> operators
> > >> (PIP 106).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The issue for PIP 106 is here:
> > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12858
> > >>
> > >> And the prototype implementation is here:
> > >>
> > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12536
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Kindly VOTE as early as possible.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Best Regards,
> > >>
> > >> Madhavan Narayanan
> > >>
> > >>
> >

Re: [Vote] PIP 106: Pulsar Broker extensions for operators of enterprise-wide clusters

[Matteo Merli]

Closing this vote and changing the status as approved (it's already
been >2 days), with

* 4 +1s binding
   - Penghui
   - Sijie
   - Matteo
   - Hang

* 1 +1:
   - Li Li



-- 
Matteo Merli


On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 5:42 PM Matteo Merli  wrote:
>
> +1
>
>
> --
> Matteo Merli
> 
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 7:36 PM Hang Chen  wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Hang
> >
> > Li Li  于2021年12月10日周五 09:24写道：
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > > On Dec 10, 2021, at 8:45 AM, Sijie Guo  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:27 AM Narayanan, Madhavan
> > > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Pulsar Community,
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I would like to start a VOTE on the Pulsar Broker extensions for 
> > > >> operators
> > > >> (PIP 106).
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> The issue for PIP 106 is here:
> > > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12858
> > > >>
> > > >> And the prototype implementation is here:
> > > >>
> > > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12536
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Kindly VOTE as early as possible.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Best Regards,
> > > >>
> > > >> Madhavan Narayanan
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Pulsar 2.7.4

[Matteo Merli]

Let's take https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12484 out of the
picture since it's failing the tests.


--
Matteo Merli


On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:06 PM PengHui Li  wrote:
>
> Yes,
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13215 has cherry-picked, so we can
> close it.
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12484 blocked by the test.
>
> Penghui
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 2:35 PM Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> > I see 2 PRs still open at
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.7.4
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Dec 12, 2021, at 8:22 PM, guo jiwei  wrote:
> > >
> > > I have pushed out some fixes in
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13243
> > > After the tests get passed, I will send out the RC-1 VOTE for 2.7.4
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Jiwei Guo (Tboy)
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 3:11 PM PengHui Li  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Just put an update here. We have done the PR cherry-picking
> > >>
> > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commits/branch-2.7
> > >>
> > >> And most of the integration tests are fixed due to the docker image
> > issue
> > >> or the testcontainer issue, now some integration tests get passed, but
> > some
> > >> are not.
> > >> And there are some failed tests, maybe a flaky test, we need to ensure
> > it's
> > >> not a regression.
> > >>
> > >> We are continuing on the test part.
> > >>
> > >> Penghui
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 5:36 PM PengHui Li  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Michael,
> > >>>
> > >>> +1,
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for the great work.
> > >>> We will continue on the PR cherry-picking and the release process to
> > make
> > >>> sure the urgent release can be done ASAP.
> > >>>
> > >>> Penghui
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 3:42 PM Michael Marshall  > >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Given the log4j CVE, we should work to release 2.7.4.
> > 
> >  I started preparing the release today by cherry-picking merged PRs
> >  that have the `release/2.7.4` label but have not yet been
> >  cherry-picked to `branch-2.7` [0]. There are still 37 PRs that have
> >  not been cherry picked. I think it will take too long to cherry pick
> >  all of these commits, as many have conflicts, and we should prioritize
> >  releasing 2.7.4. The main commits that we should get cherry-picked
> >  before creating the git tag are any labeled with `component/security`.
> >  There are only a few remaining commits to cherry pick. Please let me
> >  know if you think any other commits ought to be cherry-picked.
> > 
> >  The earliest I'll be able to build the release is Monday. If we need
> >  to start sooner, perhaps someone else will be available to manage this
> >  urgent release.
> > 
> >  Thanks,
> >  Michael
> > 
> >  [0] -
> > 
> > >>
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?page=2&q=label%3Arelease%2F2.7.4+sort%3Acreated-asc+is%3Apr+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.7
> >  [1] -
> > 
> > >>
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=label%3Arelease%2F2.7.4+sort%3Acreated-asc+is%3Apr+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.7+label%3Acomponent%2Fsecurity
> > 
> > 
> >  On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 4:03 PM Neng Lu  wrote:
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On 2021/12/09 15:29:55 Michael Marshall wrote:
> > >> Hello Pulsar Community,
> > >>
> > >> I'd like to propose that we release 2.7.4. We have merged several
> > >> important fixes since we released 2.7.3 in August.
> > >>
> > >> I am happy to volunteer to be the release manager.
> > >>
> > >> Here [0] you can find the list of 36 commits cherry-picked to
> > >> branch-2.7 since 2.7.3 release. It looks like there are more PRs
> > >> labeled with `release/2.7.4` than commits cherry-picked, so I will
> > >> need to work on cherry-picking those before we can create the tag
> > >> for
> > >> the release [1].
> > >>
> > >> Also, I see 3 open PRs labeled with `release/2.7.4`. I'll follow up
> > >> on
> > >> each of those PRs to see if they will be completed soon.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Michael
> > >>
> > >> [0] - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.7.3...branch-2.7
> > >> [1] -
> > 
> > >>
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.7.4
> > >>
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>
> >

[GitHub] [pulsar-helm-chart] wangshu3000 commented on pull request #182: Fixes #177 Fix indentation of component, as it should be under the la…

[GitBox]

wangshu3000 commented on pull request #182:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/pull/182#issuecomment-993087126


   Could anyone please merge this PR if no issue? Thanks.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

[GitHub] [pulsar-helm-chart] wangshu3000 commented on pull request #183: Update ingress api version, extension/v1beta1 will not be supported i…

[GitBox]

wangshu3000 commented on pull request #183:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/pull/183#issuecomment-993089457


   Could anybody in the team please review this PR? Thanks.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

Re: [Great News] Pulsar Hits 10,000 GitHub Stars Milestone!

[Sijie Guo]

Hi Dave and Chris / Joshua,

I appreciated the details that Dave brought that. The suggestions are
constructive. Our team has addressed those issues.

I will also consult the usage of the trademark with the trademarks team.

In regards to the other questions, I am happy to answer them if they are
not clear.

Thanks,
Sijie

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 3:34 PM Chris Latimer 
wrote:

> Hi Sijie,
>
> I only see one of two possible explanations for your latest responses in
> this thread.
>
> Either you legitimately don't see how SN's marketing is tantamount to
> influence pedaling and how it's at odds with The Apache Way. That would be
> deeply concerning given that the problem is immediately evident to every
> non-SN person who has commented on the subject. As a PMC member the
> community counts on you to uphold Apache brand guidelines and policies and
> you would certainly be failing in your duties if you are genuinely unable
> to understand why there is a problem here.
>
> The other explanation is that you understand perfectly well what the
> problem is, but refuse to acknowledge it and refuse to take action to fix
> the situation. This is even more concerning since it suggests that you are
> willing to abuse your position on the PMC to advance your own business
> interests at the expense of the community. Even worse, you're willing to
> misrepresent and deceive the community with disingenuous explanations in
> order to do so.
>
> Frankly, either of these explanations call into question your fitness to
> carry out your duties as a PMC member for this project and to represent the
> Apache Pulsar community in your current capacity.
>
> Chris
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 12:44 PM Joshua Eric  wrote:
>
> > That is an additional problem, that a PMC member doesn’t see an issue
> with
> > an SN employee promoting a new SN hire.
> >
> > At least half a dozen people join the community daily. Why aren’t we
> > celebrating all of them? No offense, but why is Dave special?
> >
> > Chris, couldn’t have said it better myself.
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 1:00 PM Sijie Guo  wrote:
> >
> > > I don't understand what is the problem with that email title.
> > >
> > > I thought that's Yu invited a co-worker to participate in the Pulsar
> > > community. There is no announcement. But I will let Yu clarify here.
> > >
> > > - Sijie
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 12:43 PM Dave Fisher  wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Dec 10, 2021, at 11:10 AM, Sijie Guo 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I also think it is a misuse of the developer list to specifically
> > > > announce
> > > > > new community members that just so happen to be recent SN hires.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you mean by "announce new community members"?
> > > >
> > > > The email with the subject: "Welcome Dave Duggins to Pulsar
> community!"
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - Sijie
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 10:02 AM Joshua Eric  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I agree with Dave.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I also think it is a misuse of the developer list to specifically
> > > > announce
> > > > >> new community members that just so happen to be recent SN hires.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Dec 9, 2021 at 3:24:29 PM, Sijie Guo 
> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Dave - I don't think SN presents the community. We just shared
> out
> > > > >> insights
> > > > >>> on community progress. Also, if you looked into our past blog
> > posts,
> > > we
> > > > >>> have been pointing people to the Pulsar website and Slack
> channel.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> - Sijie
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 12:13 PM Dave Fisher 
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> OK. I see the new name.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> My concern is about SN posting blogs that are about community
> news
> > > > >> without
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> telling readers where the whole Pulsar community can be found.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >  On Dec 9, 2021, at 6:18 AM, Dianjin Wang <
> djw...@streamnative.io
> > > > >> .INVALID
> > > > 
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > 
> > > > >>>
> > > >  I want to sync the blog status, the update has been done.
> > > > >>>
> > > > 
> > > > >>>
> > > >  Best,
> > > > >>>
> > > >  Dianjin Wang
> > > > >>>
> > > > 
> > > > >>>
> > > > 
> > > > >>>
> > > >  On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 2:34 PM Sijie Guo 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > 
> > > > >>>
> > > > > Hi Dave,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > > > Will follow up tomorrow morning (Pacific Time).
> > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > > > - Sijie
> > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 9:35 PM Dave Fisher <
> > wave4d...@comcast.net>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> Hi Sijie,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> Thanks for handling this issue. I’ll check in my morning.
> The

[VOTE] Apache Pulsar 2.8.2 candidate 1

[linlin]

This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.8.2.

It fixes the following issues:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues?q=label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.8+is%3Aclosed+label%3Arelease%2F2.8.2

*** Please download, test and vote on this release. This vote will stay open
for at least 72 hours ***

Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided for
convenience.

Source and binary files:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/pulsar-2.8.2-candidate-1/

SHA-512 checksums:
f51e93d5caa7ea4ec2616e096ca75dd71bccb475632ee5ff35d713b8f5112689d17315a1cd9350dd8f8f0bdc2e059be5fb179b2b8b3b39aae77e466103294683
 apache-pulsar-2.8.2-bin.tar.gz
8540641e76fb541f9dbfaff263946ed19a585266e5de011e78188d78ec4e1c828e8893eb2e783a1ebad866f5513efffd93396b7abd77c347f34ab689badf4fad
 apache-pulsar-2.8.2-src.tar.gz


Maven staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1108/

The tag to be voted upon:
v2.8.2-candidate-1
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.8.2-candidate-1

Pulsar's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/KEYS

Please download the source package, and follow the README to build
and run the Pulsar standalone service.

Lin Lin

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Pulsar 2.7.4

[PengHui Li]

Thanks for the update, I will move it 2.7.5

Thanks,
Penghui

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 9:47 AM Matteo Merli  wrote:

> Let's take https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12484 out of the
> picture since it's failing the tests.
>
>
> --
> Matteo Merli
> 
>
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:06 PM PengHui Li  wrote:
> >
> > Yes,
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13215 has cherry-picked, so we can
> > close it.
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12484 blocked by the test.
> >
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 2:35 PM Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I see 2 PRs still open at
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.7.4
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On Dec 12, 2021, at 8:22 PM, guo jiwei  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have pushed out some fixes in
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13243
> > > > After the tests get passed, I will send out the RC-1 VOTE for 2.7.4
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Jiwei Guo (Tboy)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 3:11 PM PengHui Li 
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Just put an update here. We have done the PR cherry-picking
> > > >>
> > > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commits/branch-2.7
> > > >>
> > > >> And most of the integration tests are fixed due to the docker image
> > > issue
> > > >> or the testcontainer issue, now some integration tests get passed,
> but
> > > some
> > > >> are not.
> > > >> And there are some failed tests, maybe a flaky test, we need to
> ensure
> > > it's
> > > >> not a regression.
> > > >>
> > > >> We are continuing on the test part.
> > > >>
> > > >> Penghui
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 5:36 PM PengHui Li 
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi Michael,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +1,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks for the great work.
> > > >>> We will continue on the PR cherry-picking and the release process
> to
> > > make
> > > >>> sure the urgent release can be done ASAP.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Penghui
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 3:42 PM Michael Marshall <
> mmarsh...@apache.org
> > > >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > >  Given the log4j CVE, we should work to release 2.7.4.
> > > 
> > >  I started preparing the release today by cherry-picking merged PRs
> > >  that have the `release/2.7.4` label but have not yet been
> > >  cherry-picked to `branch-2.7` [0]. There are still 37 PRs that
> have
> > >  not been cherry picked. I think it will take too long to cherry
> pick
> > >  all of these commits, as many have conflicts, and we should
> prioritize
> > >  releasing 2.7.4. The main commits that we should get cherry-picked
> > >  before creating the git tag are any labeled with
> `component/security`.
> > >  There are only a few remaining commits to cherry pick. Please let
> me
> > >  know if you think any other commits ought to be cherry-picked.
> > > 
> > >  The earliest I'll be able to build the release is Monday. If we
> need
> > >  to start sooner, perhaps someone else will be available to manage
> this
> > >  urgent release.
> > > 
> > >  Thanks,
> > >  Michael
> > > 
> > >  [0] -
> > > 
> > > >>
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?page=2&q=label%3Arelease%2F2.7.4+sort%3Acreated-asc+is%3Apr+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.7
> > >  [1] -
> > > 
> > > >>
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=label%3Arelease%2F2.7.4+sort%3Acreated-asc+is%3Apr+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.7+label%3Acomponent%2Fsecurity
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 4:03 PM Neng Lu  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On 2021/12/09 15:29:55 Michael Marshall wrote:
> > > >> Hello Pulsar Community,
> > > >>
> > > >> I'd like to propose that we release 2.7.4. We have merged
> several
> > > >> important fixes since we released 2.7.3 in August.
> > > >>
> > > >> I am happy to volunteer to be the release manager.
> > > >>
> > > >> Here [0] you can find the list of 36 commits cherry-picked to
> > > >> branch-2.7 since 2.7.3 release. It looks like there are more PRs
> > > >> labeled with `release/2.7.4` than commits cherry-picked, so I
> will
> > > >> need to work on cherry-picking those before we can create the
> tag
> > > >> for
> > > >> the release [1].
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, I see 3 open PRs labeled with `release/2.7.4`. I'll
> follow up
> > > >> on
> > > >> each of those PRs to see if they will be completed soon.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Michael
> > > >>
> > > >> [0] -
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.7.3...branch-2.7
> > > >> [1] -
> > > 
> > > >>
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.7.4
> > > >>
> > > 
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
>

Re: [PIP-78] Reduce redundant producers from partitioned producer

[Yuri Mizushima]

Any thought on this?

-- 
Yuri Mizushima
yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
 

On 2021/12/07 13:57, "Yuri Mizushima"  wrote:

Enrico,
Thank you for your comment.

> IIUC with this change the client will control which metrics are reported 
by
> the broker ?

From the protocol perspective, yes.
However, the main point of this change is not to "control" metrics by the 
client side,
but to make the broker aggregate partitioned topic's producer metrics 
explicitly.

Do you suggest adding a broker config that
configures whether partitioned producer stats are aggregated by 
producerName instead of
introducing a backward compatibility key (i.e., partial_producer_supported) 
on the client-side?

It is simple. However, I think we can't enable the config until all clients 
are updated.

What do you think?
Regards,
-- 
Yuri Mizushima
yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp


On 2021/12/02 17:37, "Enrico Olivelli"  wrote:

Yuri,
IIUC with this change the client will control which metrics are 
reported by
the broker ?

I am not sure it is a good idea, because metrics are usually managed by 
the
owners of the brokers, who sometimes are not the same who run the 
clients.

Also, I am not sure if this way it is possible for the client to force 
the
Broker to create many metrics and create some kind of damage.

Would it be better to add a Broker configuration flag to turn on this
feature ? I mean to allow the client to select the type of metrics ?


Enrico


Il giorno gio 2 dic 2021 alle ore 03:00 Yuri Mizushima <
yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp> ha scritto:

> Do you have any comments?
> If there are no comments by Dec. 7, I will close the discussion and 
rebase
> the PR commit to current master.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Yuri Mizushima
> yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
>
>
> On 2021/11/16 15:46, "Yuri Mizushima"  wrote:
>
> Dear Pulsar community,
>
> I have created a new PR
> 
https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fpulsar%2Fpull%2F12401&data=04%7C01%7Cyumizush%40yahoo-corp.jp%7C7e19573ee36d4edf3d6c08d9b93df247%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637744498709588901%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=qcUOpCoQZZH%2B%2FlobXMhgcNXmlaSyaahXMel9YBmGEWs%3D&reserved=0
> for stats aggregation,
> but I didn't discuss about the wire protocol change. I hope we 
will
> discuss it here.
>
> Currently, partitioned producer can't aggregate by any key such as
> cnx, producerId, producerName, and so on.
> I think we need to add any aggregation system.
> Therefore, added new aggregation policy as producerName (with 
client
> side implementation).
>
> New protocol field partial_producer_supported is not used for 
stats
> aggregation. It is used for backward compatibility.
>
> 
https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fpulsar%2Fpull%2F12401%2Ffiles%23diff-f29399fed32e0916cf28452ba71078a3ae5ed77bbaef9f52a925165d8ee66cfdR489&data=04%7C01%7Cyumizush%40yahoo-corp.jp%7C7e19573ee36d4edf3d6c08d9b93df247%7Ca208d369cd4e4f87b11998eaf31df2c3%7C1%7C0%7C637744498709588901%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=wFBZwBwQ4yGUF9VlUdoOhKb4K54ZF0yGwv9kycvxoqI%3D&reserved=0
>
> In my understanding, if introduce new stats aggregation key to 
client
> side,
> need a way to determine whether the feature is enabled at client 
side.
> For example, whether the producer has specific field or metadata,
> the version (e.g. protocol version) is greater than threshold, 
etc.
>
> Of course, if we can introduce aggregation feature without adding 
any
> new key or implementations from client side,
> we can support the feature not only new client but also old one.
>
> I'm looking forward to your opinions or suggestions to this PR.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Yuri Mizushima
> yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
>
>
> On 2021/05/11 14:26, "Yuri Mizushima"  
wrote:
>
>
> Dear Pulsar Community,
>
> > I will submit the next PR about PartitionedTopicStats later.
> I submitted the next PR for this PIP. If you have any suggestions,
> please comment to this PR.
>
> 
https://jpn01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fpulsar%2Fpull%2F10534&data=04%7C01%7Cyumizush%40yahoo-

Re: Log4j 2.16.0 a more complete fix to Log4Shell

[Michael Marshall]

Thanks for the note, Dave.

I created a PR to bump the version in Pulsar [0].

Thanks,
Michael

[0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13277

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 6:43 PM Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/d6v4r6nosxysyq9rvnr779336yf0woz4

[discuss] BacklogQuota param change

[ZhangJian He]

I found a change between pulsar2.7 and pulsar2.9

command
```
bin/pulsar admin namespaces get-backlog-quotas $tenant/$namespace
```

pulsar2.7 returns `limit=1024, policy=consumer_backlog_eviction`

but pulsar 2.9 returns

```[root@23da8000c7c1 bin]# ./pulsar-admin namespaces get-backlog-quotas
public/functions
"destination_storageBacklogQuotaImpl(limitSize=102400, limitTime=-1,
policy=consumer_backlog_eviction)"
```

I found that the @JsonAlias("limit") annotation has been removed
on org.apache.pulsar.common.policies.data.BacklogQuota in
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/10774.
My question is, Is that a expected change or compatible change? I search
the 2.8.0 release notes, I didn't saw it.

And If it involves work, I'm happy to help :)


Thanks
ZhangJian He

[GitHub] [pulsar-client-node] hrsakai merged pull request #184: Add tarball files to .gitignore

[GitBox]

hrsakai merged pull request #184:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-node/pull/184


   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

Re: [discuss] BacklogQuota param change

[ZhangJian He]

After discussing it with Matteo. It’s prob not backward compatible.

I will work on a fix.

Thanks
ZhangJian He

ZhangJian He  于2021年12月14日周二 12:57写道：

> I found a change between pulsar2.7 and pulsar2.9
>
> command
> ```
> bin/pulsar admin namespaces get-backlog-quotas $tenant/$namespace
> ```
>
> pulsar2.7 returns `limit=1024, policy=consumer_backlog_eviction`
>
> but pulsar 2.9 returns
>
> ```[root@23da8000c7c1 bin]# ./pulsar-admin namespaces get-backlog-quotas
> public/functions
> "destination_storageBacklogQuotaImpl(limitSize=102400, limitTime=-1,
> policy=consumer_backlog_eviction)"
> ```
>
> I found that the @JsonAlias("limit") annotation has been removed
> on org.apache.pulsar.common.policies.data.BacklogQuota in
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/10774.
> My question is, Is that a expected change or compatible change? I search
> the 2.8.0 release notes, I didn't saw it.
>
> And If it involves work, I'm happy to help :)
>
>
> Thanks
> ZhangJian He
>

Re: [discuss] BacklogQuota param change

[PengHui Li]

Thanks, ZhangJian.

Looking forward to your PR.

Penghui


On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 1:40 PM ZhangJian He  wrote:

> After discussing it with Matteo. It’s prob not backward compatible.
>
> I will work on a fix.
>
> Thanks
> ZhangJian He
>
> ZhangJian He  于2021年12月14日周二 12:57写道：
>
> > I found a change between pulsar2.7 and pulsar2.9
> >
> > command
> > ```
> > bin/pulsar admin namespaces get-backlog-quotas $tenant/$namespace
> > ```
> >
> > pulsar2.7 returns `limit=1024, policy=consumer_backlog_eviction`
> >
> > but pulsar 2.9 returns
> >
> > ```[root@23da8000c7c1 bin]# ./pulsar-admin namespaces get-backlog-quotas
> > public/functions
> > "destination_storageBacklogQuotaImpl(limitSize=102400, limitTime=-1,
> > policy=consumer_backlog_eviction)"
> > ```
> >
> > I found that the @JsonAlias("limit") annotation has been removed
> > on org.apache.pulsar.common.policies.data.BacklogQuota in
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/10774.
> > My question is, Is that a expected change or compatible change? I search
> > the 2.8.0 release notes, I didn't saw it.
> >
> > And If it involves work, I'm happy to help :)
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > ZhangJian He
> >
>

[GitHub] [pulsar-client-node] massakam opened a new pull request #187: Bump the master version to 1.6.0

[GitBox]

massakam opened a new pull request #187:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-node/pull/187


   I have already created branch-1.5 to perform the release, so bump the master 
version to 1.6.0-rc.0.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Marvin Cai

[Yu]

Congratulations Marvin!

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 8:42 AM Guangning E  wrote:

> Configrats!
>
> Thanks,
> Guangning
>
> Huanli Meng  于2021年12月14日周二 08:34写道：
>
> > Congratulations Marvin!
> >
> > BR//Huanli
> >
> > > On Dec 13, 2021, at 5:46 PM, linlin  wrote:
> > >
> > > The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Marvin
> > Cai
> > > https://github.com/MarvinCai to become a committer and we are pleased
> to
> > > announce that he has accepted.
> > >
> > > Marvin has joined the community for more than 1 year now and he is
> > active in
> > > the Pulsar community for more than 6 months.
> > >
> > > Welcome and Congratulations, Marvin!
> > >
> > > Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Marvin onboard!
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
> >
> >
>