Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li]

> Does this mean that transactions are not yet stable in 2.9? I think we
need to clarify this point and then communicate that to our users.

At least currently it is not a stable version, all the components have been
completed
but at least not verified on a large scale, the performance needs to be
optimized.
Not all cases have been handled well.

And look back to the PR  https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097, it
does not block
the common case of transactions, there are many fixes not in 2.9.2
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.3+transaction

> Our time based release plan defined in PIP 47 does not define a
timeline for patch releases. Regarding patch releases, it only says
"We will also attempt, as a community to do bugfix releases as needed
for the last 4 releases

We don't contain many fixes in 2.9.1 right? and 2.9.1 released at
2021/12/20,
So when should we release 2.9.2?

> I do not consider this a failure. One of the benefits of using an
open source project is that you can build it yourself. Given that
users have this option.

The root cause is they need to wait a long time for a minor release right?
If it's a our desired outcome, why do we still do releases?

> known regressions for stable features. We may not have known
about this regression in 2.9.1, but we know about it now, before the 2.9.2
vote has closed.

The 2.9.2 release process is already started and the regression is not
introduced in 2.9.2,
Will there be any problems in the 2.9.3 release? We didn't release a worse
version,
Essentially we want serious issues to be fixed as quickly as possible, but
we shouldn't delay
the release of other more important fixes

Thanks,
Penghui

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 2:53 PM Michael Marshall 
wrote:

> I am -0 for this release because of the transaction regression,
> assuming it is as bad as Enrico described. I don't know enough about
> the transaction feature's stability to give a "-1".
>
> > There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for all of
> > them to be completed
>
> Does this mean that transactions are not yet stable in 2.9? I think we
> need to clarify this point and then communicate that to our users.
>
> > We should follow the time-based release mode.
>
> Our time based release plan defined in PIP 47 does not define a
> timeline for patch releases. Regarding patch releases, it only says
> "We will also attempt, as a community to do bugfix releases as needed
> for the last 4 releases.".
>
> > I see many users can't wait for our release,
> > they build from the branch-2.9 manually.
>
> I do not consider this a failure. One of the benefits of using an
> open source project is that you can build it yourself. Given that
> users have this option, I think we should strive for releases without
> large, known regressions for stable features. We may not have known
> about this regression in 2.9.1, but we know about it now, before the 2.9.2
> vote has closed.
>
> > If the time-based release doesn't work, I think we should have a
> discussion
> > in the private email list
>
> I request this discussion happen on the dev list to allow for user and
> contributor feedback.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 11:08 PM PengHui Li  wrote:
> >
> > Hi enrico,
> >
> > There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for all of
> > them to be completed
> > Please move them to 2.9.3 and don't block the 2.9.2 release.
> >
> > And https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097 also in the discussion
> > stage,
> > We should keep calm at this time, no need to hurry to merge a 100% clear
> > plan,
> > otherwise, we might introduce other regression in 2.9.2.
> >
> > Another point is non-transaction users are much larger than transaction
> > users for now,
> > there are many critical issue fixes in 2.9.2, I see many users can't wait
> > for our release,
> > they build from the branch-2.9 manually.
> >
> > We should follow the time-based release mode. If the release doesn't have
> > critical security issues, regressions.
> > we should not block the release, instead, we should prepare for the
> release
> > of 2.9.3 earlier.
> >
> > If the time-based release doesn't work, I think we should have a
> discussion
> > in the private email list
> > to find a good solution for Pulsar release, Let everyone keep consistent
> on
> > the rules for release.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 5:04 PM Enrico Olivelli 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Penghui, Gao,
> > > see my comments below please
> > >
> > > Il giorno mar 8 feb 2022 alle ore 09:16 Hang Chen
> > >  ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > +1 (binding)
> > > >
> > > > Verified the following context.
> > > > 1. Checked the checksum and licenses
> > > > 2. Build from the source code successfully
> > > > 3. Start standalone and run pulsar-perf with produce and consume
> > > > 4. Checked the Pulsar function and stateful functions
> > > > 5. Run Pulsar with KOP and publish and consume successfully

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Pulsar 2.10.0 release

[PengHui Li]

Hi all,

Sorry for the late reply, due to my vacation these days, we got a delay
here.

Most of the changes of 2.10.0 are getting merged, for now, there are 14
opened PRs(10 approved)
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A2.10.0

I will take care of them and try to get them merged.
After the above PRs get merged, I will build the release and start the vote.
Please let me know if you have any questions about the 2.10.0 release.
And, also looking forward to more people taking a look at the opened PRs.

Regards,
Penghui




On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 7:56 AM Sijie Guo  wrote:

> +1.
>
> All make sense to me!
>
> We probably need to move to the feature frozen stage in order to cut a
> release at the end of January.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 8:46 PM PengHui Li  wrote:
>
> > Hi, everyone
> >
> > I hope you’ve all been doing well. I would like to start an email thread
> to
> > discuss features that we planned for 2.10.0.
> > According to the time-based release plan
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-47%3A-Time-Based-Release-Plan,
> > we should release 2.10.0 at the end of December 2021, since we have
> reached
> > the end of December,
> > I would like to target the 2.10.0 to the end of January 2022
> >
> > There are some powerful features and enhancements in 2.10.0 such as
> >
> > - PIP 84: Message redelivery epoch
> > - PIP 104: Add new consumer type: TableView
> > - PIP 106: Negative acknowledgment backoff
> > - PIP 110: Topic customized metadata support
> > - PIP 117: Change Pulsar standalone defaults
> > - PIP 118: Do not restart brokers when ZooKeeper session expires
> > - PIP 119: Enable consistent hashing by default on KeyShared dispatcher
> > - PIP 120: Enable client memory limit by default
> > - PIP 121: Pulsar cluster level auto failover
> > - PIP 123: Pulsar metadata CLI tool
> > - Metadata service batch operations
> > - RocksDB metadata service backend
> > - Etcd metadata service backend
> > - Ack timeout redelivery backoff policy
> > - Global topic policies
> >
> > Most of them have been completed, some work in progress we need to try to
> > complete within 2 weeks.
> > This can give me a 2 week buffer period to prepare for release and
> complete
> > the release vote.
> > For the unfinished parts, we can move them to 2.11.0.
> >
> > Some proposals are just being discussed, so I do not list them because
> I'm
> > not sure if we can complete them in two weeks.
> >
> > You can find all the change lists from
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=milestone%3A2.10.0+-label%3Arelease%2F2.9.1
> > There are more than 500 commits.
> >
> > If I missed something or you have any suggestions please let me know.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Penghui
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Pulsar 2.10.0 release

[Enrico Olivelli]

PengHui,
There is a recent discussion with Matteo (at the community meetings)
about preparing the release branch a couple of weeks before sending
out the official VOTE.

What about creating the branch-2.10 as soon as possible?
We will commit to that branch only the fixes needed to make 2.10.0 stable
This way we will be free to commit new stuff to master branch without
impacting the stability of 2.10

This way people can start validating 2.10 seriously in order to catch
problems before sending out the RC

Does it sound like a good idea to you ?
Enrico

Il giorno mer 9 feb 2022 alle ore 09:25 PengHui Li
 ha scritto:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry for the late reply, due to my vacation these days, we got a delay
> here.
>
> Most of the changes of 2.10.0 are getting merged, for now, there are 14
> opened PRs(10 approved)
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A2.10.0
>
> I will take care of them and try to get them merged.
> After the above PRs get merged, I will build the release and start the vote.
> Please let me know if you have any questions about the 2.10.0 release.
> And, also looking forward to more people taking a look at the opened PRs.
>
> Regards,
> Penghui
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 7:56 AM Sijie Guo  wrote:
>
> > +1.
> >
> > All make sense to me!
> >
> > We probably need to move to the feature frozen stage in order to cut a
> > release at the end of January.
> >
> > - Sijie
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 8:46 PM PengHui Li  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, everyone
> > >
> > > I hope you’ve all been doing well. I would like to start an email thread
> > to
> > > discuss features that we planned for 2.10.0.
> > > According to the time-based release plan
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-47%3A-Time-Based-Release-Plan,
> > > we should release 2.10.0 at the end of December 2021, since we have
> > reached
> > > the end of December,
> > > I would like to target the 2.10.0 to the end of January 2022
> > >
> > > There are some powerful features and enhancements in 2.10.0 such as
> > >
> > > - PIP 84: Message redelivery epoch
> > > - PIP 104: Add new consumer type: TableView
> > > - PIP 106: Negative acknowledgment backoff
> > > - PIP 110: Topic customized metadata support
> > > - PIP 117: Change Pulsar standalone defaults
> > > - PIP 118: Do not restart brokers when ZooKeeper session expires
> > > - PIP 119: Enable consistent hashing by default on KeyShared dispatcher
> > > - PIP 120: Enable client memory limit by default
> > > - PIP 121: Pulsar cluster level auto failover
> > > - PIP 123: Pulsar metadata CLI tool
> > > - Metadata service batch operations
> > > - RocksDB metadata service backend
> > > - Etcd metadata service backend
> > > - Ack timeout redelivery backoff policy
> > > - Global topic policies
> > >
> > > Most of them have been completed, some work in progress we need to try to
> > > complete within 2 weeks.
> > > This can give me a 2 week buffer period to prepare for release and
> > complete
> > > the release vote.
> > > For the unfinished parts, we can move them to 2.11.0.
> > >
> > > Some proposals are just being discussed, so I do not list them because
> > I'm
> > > not sure if we can complete them in two weeks.
> > >
> > > You can find all the change lists from
> > >
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=milestone%3A2.10.0+-label%3Arelease%2F2.9.1
> > > There are more than 500 commits.
> > >
> > > If I missed something or you have any suggestions please let me know.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Penghui
> > >
> >

[GitHub] [pulsar-client-node] csauvage closed issue #189: Fail to build `pulsar-client` on M1

[GitBox]

csauvage closed issue #189:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-node/issues/189


   


-- 
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-client-node] csauvage commented on issue #189: Fail to build `pulsar-client` on M1

[GitBox]

csauvage commented on issue #189:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-node/issues/189#issuecomment-1033513581


   The first one worked perfectly, not the second one. Thx !


-- 
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] lhotari commented on pull request #225: allow specifying the nodeSelector for the init jobs

[GitBox]

lhotari commented on pull request #225:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/pull/225#issuecomment-1033539128


   > what do i do for the bookkeeper_cluster_initalize jobs? specify another 
nodeSelector value? or use the pulsar_metadata.nodeSelector value there as well?
   
   I think it's fine to use the pulsar_metadata.nodeSelector value there as 
well.


-- 
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] Apache Pulsar 2.10.0 release

[PengHui Li]

Yes, I agree, it's a good idea. But it depends on the features freeze time.
cherry-picking fix it ok, but does not work for BIG PRs with protocol
changes,
API changes, such huge changes might introduce new problems during the
cherry-picking.

After the features are completed, I will create the new 2.10 branch, and
only apply
the critical bug fixes, regression fixes. So that we can have adequate
testing on branch-2.10

Thanks,
Penghui

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 4:30 PM Enrico Olivelli  wrote:

> PengHui,
> There is a recent discussion with Matteo (at the community meetings)
> about preparing the release branch a couple of weeks before sending
> out the official VOTE.
>
> What about creating the branch-2.10 as soon as possible?
> We will commit to that branch only the fixes needed to make 2.10.0 stable
> This way we will be free to commit new stuff to master branch without
> impacting the stability of 2.10
>
> This way people can start validating 2.10 seriously in order to catch
> problems before sending out the RC
>
> Does it sound like a good idea to you ?
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno mer 9 feb 2022 alle ore 09:25 PengHui Li
>  ha scritto:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Sorry for the late reply, due to my vacation these days, we got a delay
> > here.
> >
> > Most of the changes of 2.10.0 are getting merged, for now, there are 14
> > opened PRs(10 approved)
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A2.10.0
> >
> > I will take care of them and try to get them merged.
> > After the above PRs get merged, I will build the release and start the
> vote.
> > Please let me know if you have any questions about the 2.10.0 release.
> > And, also looking forward to more people taking a look at the opened PRs.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Penghui
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 7:56 AM Sijie Guo  wrote:
> >
> > > +1.
> > >
> > > All make sense to me!
> > >
> > > We probably need to move to the feature frozen stage in order to cut a
> > > release at the end of January.
> > >
> > > - Sijie
> > >
> > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 8:46 PM PengHui Li  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi, everyone
> > > >
> > > > I hope you’ve all been doing well. I would like to start an email
> thread
> > > to
> > > > discuss features that we planned for 2.10.0.
> > > > According to the time-based release plan
> > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-47%3A-Time-Based-Release-Plan,
> > > > we should release 2.10.0 at the end of December 2021, since we have
> > > reached
> > > > the end of December,
> > > > I would like to target the 2.10.0 to the end of January 2022
> > > >
> > > > There are some powerful features and enhancements in 2.10.0 such as
> > > >
> > > > - PIP 84: Message redelivery epoch
> > > > - PIP 104: Add new consumer type: TableView
> > > > - PIP 106: Negative acknowledgment backoff
> > > > - PIP 110: Topic customized metadata support
> > > > - PIP 117: Change Pulsar standalone defaults
> > > > - PIP 118: Do not restart brokers when ZooKeeper session expires
> > > > - PIP 119: Enable consistent hashing by default on KeyShared
> dispatcher
> > > > - PIP 120: Enable client memory limit by default
> > > > - PIP 121: Pulsar cluster level auto failover
> > > > - PIP 123: Pulsar metadata CLI tool
> > > > - Metadata service batch operations
> > > > - RocksDB metadata service backend
> > > > - Etcd metadata service backend
> > > > - Ack timeout redelivery backoff policy
> > > > - Global topic policies
> > > >
> > > > Most of them have been completed, some work in progress we need to
> try to
> > > > complete within 2 weeks.
> > > > This can give me a 2 week buffer period to prepare for release and
> > > complete
> > > > the release vote.
> > > > For the unfinished parts, we can move them to 2.11.0.
> > > >
> > > > Some proposals are just being discussed, so I do not list them
> because
> > > I'm
> > > > not sure if we can complete them in two weeks.
> > > >
> > > > You can find all the change lists from
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=milestone%3A2.10.0+-label%3Arelease%2F2.9.1
> > > > There are more than 500 commits.
> > > >
> > > > If I missed something or you have any suggestions please let me know.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Penghui
> > > >
> > >
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Enrico Olivelli]

Peng Hui,
given the fact that Transactions are not something that you can use in
production in 2.9,
then we could move forward with this release.

But this would be a real pity, because we are stating that users
should not use transactions because they are not stable.

If it is a matter of fixing the problem reported by Nicolò, then we
should fix it and let people try out transactions.

We are not in a hurry, and as you said, if someone is in a hurry, they
can build Pulsar from branch-2.9.

We have the responsibility to cut good quality releases, and as we are
contributing here all as volunteers there is no strict deadline.

Also Nicolò reported the error because he has several integration
tests that are not passing on 2.9.2rc0,
we should take into consideration the voice of our users.

I am not going to VOTE -1, but I will hold off casting a vote on 2.9.2RC0

Gao, please consider my vote as "-0"

Enrico

Il giorno mer 9 feb 2022 alle ore 09:14 PengHui Li
 ha scritto:
>
> > Does this mean that transactions are not yet stable in 2.9? I think we
> need to clarify this point and then communicate that to our users.
>
> At least currently it is not a stable version, all the components have been
> completed
> but at least not verified on a large scale, the performance needs to be
> optimized.
> Not all cases have been handled well.
>
> And look back to the PR  https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097, it
> does not block
> the common case of transactions, there are many fixes not in 2.9.2
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.3+transaction
>
> > Our time based release plan defined in PIP 47 does not define a
> timeline for patch releases. Regarding patch releases, it only says
> "We will also attempt, as a community to do bugfix releases as needed
> for the last 4 releases
>
> We don't contain many fixes in 2.9.1 right? and 2.9.1 released at
> 2021/12/20,
> So when should we release 2.9.2?
>
> > I do not consider this a failure. One of the benefits of using an
> open source project is that you can build it yourself. Given that
> users have this option.
>
> The root cause is they need to wait a long time for a minor release right?
> If it's a our desired outcome, why do we still do releases?
>
> > known regressions for stable features. We may not have known
> about this regression in 2.9.1, but we know about it now, before the 2.9.2
> vote has closed.
>
> The 2.9.2 release process is already started and the regression is not
> introduced in 2.9.2,
> Will there be any problems in the 2.9.3 release? We didn't release a worse
> version,
> Essentially we want serious issues to be fixed as quickly as possible, but
> we shouldn't delay
> the release of other more important fixes
>
> Thanks,
> Penghui
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 2:53 PM Michael Marshall 
> wrote:
>
> > I am -0 for this release because of the transaction regression,
> > assuming it is as bad as Enrico described. I don't know enough about
> > the transaction feature's stability to give a "-1".
> >
> > > There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for all of
> > > them to be completed
> >
> > Does this mean that transactions are not yet stable in 2.9? I think we
> > need to clarify this point and then communicate that to our users.
> >
> > > We should follow the time-based release mode.
> >
> > Our time based release plan defined in PIP 47 does not define a
> > timeline for patch releases. Regarding patch releases, it only says
> > "We will also attempt, as a community to do bugfix releases as needed
> > for the last 4 releases.".
> >
> > > I see many users can't wait for our release,
> > > they build from the branch-2.9 manually.
> >
> > I do not consider this a failure. One of the benefits of using an
> > open source project is that you can build it yourself. Given that
> > users have this option, I think we should strive for releases without
> > large, known regressions for stable features. We may not have known
> > about this regression in 2.9.1, but we know about it now, before the 2.9.2
> > vote has closed.
> >
> > > If the time-based release doesn't work, I think we should have a
> > discussion
> > > in the private email list
> >
> > I request this discussion happen on the dev list to allow for user and
> > contributor feedback.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 11:08 PM PengHui Li  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi enrico,
> > >
> > > There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for all of
> > > them to be completed
> > > Please move them to 2.9.3 and don't block the 2.9.2 release.
> > >
> > > And https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097 also in the discussion
> > > stage,
> > > We should keep calm at this time, no need to hurry to merge a 100% clear
> > > plan,
> > > otherwise, we might introduce other regression in 2.9.2.
> > >
> > > Another point is non-transaction users are much larger than transaction
> > > users for now,
> > > there are many critic

[DISCUSS] Release Pulsar 2.8.3

[Michael Marshall]

Hello Pulsar Community,

We have had several important fixes since we released 2.8.2 a month
ago. I propose we start the process to release 2.8.3, and I volunteer
to be the release manager.

Here [0] you can find the list of 90 commits to branch-2.8 since the
2.8.2 release. There are 14 closed PRs targeting 2.8.3 that have not
yet been cherry-picked [1]. I will start reviewing and cherry-picking
these.

There are 16 open PRs labeled with `release/2.8.3` [1]. I'll follow up
on each of those PRs to see if they will be completed soon or will
need to be pushed to 2.8.4.

Thanks,
Michael

[0] - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.8.2...branch-2.8
[1] - 
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.8.3+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.8+is%3Aopen

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Pulsar 2.8.3

[Lari Hotari]

+1
Thank you, Michael, for volunteering to be the release manager for 2.8.3.

-Lari

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 8:16 PM Michael Marshall 
wrote:

> Hello Pulsar Community,
>
> We have had several important fixes since we released 2.8.2 a month
> ago. I propose we start the process to release 2.8.3, and I volunteer
> to be the release manager.
>
> Here [0] you can find the list of 90 commits to branch-2.8 since the
> 2.8.2 release. There are 14 closed PRs targeting 2.8.3 that have not
> yet been cherry-picked [1]. I will start reviewing and cherry-picking
> these.
>
> There are 16 open PRs labeled with `release/2.8.3` [1]. I'll follow up
> on each of those PRs to see if they will be completed soon or will
> need to be pushed to 2.8.4.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> [0] - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.8.2...branch-2.8
> [1] -
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.8.3+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.8+is%3Aopen
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li]

> given the fact that Transactions are not something that you can use in
production in 2.9

Yes, for transactions, it's better to use the latest branch-2.9, not 2.9.1
or 2.9.2.

> If it is a matter of fixing the problem reported by Nicolò, then we
should fix it and let people try out transactions.

Yes, Congbo and I have a discussion yesterday, he has pushed out a fix
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192
It's a more general solution for the issue.

And, I would like to clarify the bug, it's not a common case, it's depends
multiple conditions,

1. users disabled transactions at the client-side, workaround to enable the
transaction at the client-side
2. no new messages for a topic, if the producer continues sending messages,
the issue will be fixed

So, I don't think it should be a blocker for the new release. Of course, if
the bug
seriously affect the use of normal transaction cases, we should stop the
release and wait for the fix.

> We have the responsibility to cut good quality releases, and as we are
contributing here all as volunteers there is no strict deadline.

We have the same goal, to provide good quality releases,
But that doesn't mean a very long release time is a good choice,
This happened two years ago, a minor version release we will take more than
3 month
Find a new bug, cancel the release, again and again.
So PIP 47 was introduced.

> we should take into consideration the voice of our users.

Yes, agree.

Thanks,
Penghui


On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 1:09 AM Enrico Olivelli  wrote:

> Peng Hui,
> given the fact that Transactions are not something that you can use in
> production in 2.9,
> then we could move forward with this release.
>
> But this would be a real pity, because we are stating that users
> should not use transactions because they are not stable.
>
> If it is a matter of fixing the problem reported by Nicolò, then we
> should fix it and let people try out transactions.
>
> We are not in a hurry, and as you said, if someone is in a hurry, they
> can build Pulsar from branch-2.9.
>
> We have the responsibility to cut good quality releases, and as we are
> contributing here all as volunteers there is no strict deadline.
>
> Also Nicolò reported the error because he has several integration
> tests that are not passing on 2.9.2rc0,
> we should take into consideration the voice of our users.
>
> I am not going to VOTE -1, but I will hold off casting a vote on 2.9.2RC0
>
> Gao, please consider my vote as "-0"
>
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno mer 9 feb 2022 alle ore 09:14 PengHui Li
>  ha scritto:
> >
> > > Does this mean that transactions are not yet stable in 2.9? I think we
> > need to clarify this point and then communicate that to our users.
> >
> > At least currently it is not a stable version, all the components have
> been
> > completed
> > but at least not verified on a large scale, the performance needs to be
> > optimized.
> > Not all cases have been handled well.
> >
> > And look back to the PR  https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097, it
> > does not block
> > the common case of transactions, there are many fixes not in 2.9.2
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.3+transaction
> >
> > > Our time based release plan defined in PIP 47 does not define a
> > timeline for patch releases. Regarding patch releases, it only says
> > "We will also attempt, as a community to do bugfix releases as needed
> > for the last 4 releases
> >
> > We don't contain many fixes in 2.9.1 right? and 2.9.1 released at
> > 2021/12/20,
> > So when should we release 2.9.2?
> >
> > > I do not consider this a failure. One of the benefits of using an
> > open source project is that you can build it yourself. Given that
> > users have this option.
> >
> > The root cause is they need to wait a long time for a minor release
> right?
> > If it's a our desired outcome, why do we still do releases?
> >
> > > known regressions for stable features. We may not have known
> > about this regression in 2.9.1, but we know about it now, before the
> 2.9.2
> > vote has closed.
> >
> > The 2.9.2 release process is already started and the regression is not
> > introduced in 2.9.2,
> > Will there be any problems in the 2.9.3 release? We didn't release a
> worse
> > version,
> > Essentially we want serious issues to be fixed as quickly as possible,
> but
> > we shouldn't delay
> > the release of other more important fixes
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 2:53 PM Michael Marshall 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I am -0 for this release because of the transaction regression,
> > > assuming it is as bad as Enrico described. I don't know enough about
> > > the transaction feature's stability to give a "-1".
> > >
> > > > There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for
> all of
> > > > them to be completed
> > >
> > > Does this mean that transactions are not yet stable in 2.9? I think we
> > > need to clarify this point and then communicate that to our user

[GitHub] [pulsar-manager] xuesongxs opened a new issue #443: Simplify the classpath in the bin/pulsar-manager script

[GitBox]

xuesongxs opened a new issue #443:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-manager/issues/443


   The classpath in the original bin / pulsar manager script is realized by 
splicing jar packages, which leads to the command of PS process is too long, so 
it needs to be simplified.
   
![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/54351417/153323910-02e06de9-cd27-4cd9-addc-05a6b51fce3a.png)
   
   for example:
   
![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/54351417/153323378-36488fd0-051b-4424-ac05-d01f1240583e.png)
   


-- 
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-manager] xuesongxs opened a new pull request #444: Simplified classpath

[GitBox]

xuesongxs opened a new pull request #444:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-manager/pull/444


   Fixes #443 
   
   for example:
   
![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/54351417/153324263-562c9a33-9f76-4780-beb0-a77b4c1bfb86.png)
   


-- 
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

[DISCUSS] Releasing Pulsar-client-go 0.8.0

[r...@apache.org]

Hello Everyone:


I hope you’ve all been doing well. In the past two months, we have

fixed a number of bugs related to connection leaks and added

some new features. For more information refer to:


https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-go/milestone/9



For that reason, I think we should be releasing a 0.8.0 version with

what we have today.


--


Thanks

Xiaolong Ran

[ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Aloys Zhang

[linlin]

The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Aloys Zhang

(https://github.com/aloyszhang) to become a committer and we are pleased to

announce that he has accepted.

Aloys Zhang joined the Pulsar community in June 2020 and contributed a lot
of commits
to the community, including PIP-70 which brings lightweight broker entry
metadata
to Pulsar and some other pull requests:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+assignee%3Aaloyszhang+.

Welcome and Congratulations, Aloys Zhang! Please enjoy the journey as a
committer :)

Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Aloys Zhang onboard!

Best Regards,
Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC

Re: [DISCUSS] Releasing Pulsar-client-go 0.8.0

[Matteo Merli]

+1


--
Matteo Merli


On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 6:44 PM r...@apache.org  wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone:
>
>
> I hope you’ve all been doing well. In the past two months, we have
>
> fixed a number of bugs related to connection leaks and added
>
> some new features. For more information refer to:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-go/milestone/9
> 
>
>
> For that reason, I think we should be releasing a 0.8.0 version with
>
> what we have today.
>
>
> --
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Xiaolong Ran

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Lin Lin]

My personal opinion:

If this is a blocking issue, we should tag the issue and raise it in the 
discussion stage, not in the final release stage, which will waste a lot of 
time of the release manager. But I see this issue is already closed.
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097

We can evaluate the repair time of this issue. If it does not take too much 
time, I think it can be merged into 2.9.2. If it is too late, I suggest move it 
to 2.9.3, since there are other serious issues waiting to be released, we can 
run in small steps.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Aloys Zhang

[r...@apache.org]

Congratulations, Aloys Zhang!

--
Thanks
Xiaolong Ran

linlin  于2022年2月10日周四 10:46写道：

> The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Aloys
> Zhang
>
> (https://github.com/aloyszhang) to become a committer and we are pleased
> to
>
> announce that he has accepted.
>
> Aloys Zhang joined the Pulsar community in June 2020 and contributed a lot
> of commits
> to the community, including PIP-70 which brings lightweight broker entry
> metadata
> to Pulsar and some other pull requests:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+assignee%3Aaloyszhang+.
>
> Welcome and Congratulations, Aloys Zhang! Please enjoy the journey as a
> committer :)
>
> Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Aloys Zhang onboard!
>
> Best Regards,
> Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
>

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Aloys Zhang

[ZhangJian He]

Congratulations, Aloys Zhang!

Thanks
ZhangJian He

r...@apache.org  于2022年2月10日周四 11:16写道：

> Congratulations, Aloys Zhang!
>
> --
> Thanks
> Xiaolong Ran
>
> linlin  于2022年2月10日周四 10:46写道：
>
> > The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Aloys
> > Zhang
> >
> > (https://github.com/aloyszhang) to become a committer and we are pleased
> > to
> >
> > announce that he has accepted.
> >
> > Aloys Zhang joined the Pulsar community in June 2020 and contributed a
> lot
> > of commits
> > to the community, including PIP-70 which brings lightweight broker entry
> > metadata
> > to Pulsar and some other pull requests:
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+assignee%3Aaloyszhang+.
> >
> > Welcome and Congratulations, Aloys Zhang! Please enjoy the journey as a
> > committer :)
> >
> > Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Aloys Zhang onboard!
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Pulsar 2.8.3

[PengHui Li]

+1

Thank you!

- Penghui

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:18 AM Lari Hotari  wrote:

> +1
> Thank you, Michael, for volunteering to be the release manager for 2.8.3.
>
> -Lari
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 8:16 PM Michael Marshall 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Pulsar Community,
> >
> > We have had several important fixes since we released 2.8.2 a month
> > ago. I propose we start the process to release 2.8.3, and I volunteer
> > to be the release manager.
> >
> > Here [0] you can find the list of 90 commits to branch-2.8 since the
> > 2.8.2 release. There are 14 closed PRs targeting 2.8.3 that have not
> > yet been cherry-picked [1]. I will start reviewing and cherry-picking
> > these.
> >
> > There are 16 open PRs labeled with `release/2.8.3` [1]. I'll follow up
> > on each of those PRs to see if they will be completed soon or will
> > need to be pushed to 2.8.4.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Michael
> >
> > [0] - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.8.2...branch-2.8
> > [1] -
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.8.3+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.8+is%3Aopen
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li]

It should not be a blocking issue, as I mentioned before we can work around
and the issue happens for specific conditions
And there are some other ongoing transaction fixes, for transactions using
the latest branch-2.9 is the best option, not 2.9.2 even contain
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097

So I suggest moving forward with the 2.9.2 release and focusing on the
transaction fixes in 2.9.3.

Regards,
Penghui

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:02 AM Lin Lin  wrote:

>
> My personal opinion:
>
> If this is a blocking issue, we should tag the issue and raise it in the
> discussion stage, not in the final release stage, which will waste a lot of
> time of the release manager. But I see this issue is already closed.
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
>
> We can evaluate the repair time of this issue. If it does not take too
> much time, I think it can be merged into 2.9.2. If it is too late, I
> suggest move it to 2.9.3, since there are other serious issues waiting to
> be released, we can run in small steps.
>

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Aloys Zhang

[PengHui Li]

Congratulations,  Aloys Zhang

Thanks,
Penghui

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:19 AM ZhangJian He  wrote:

> Congratulations, Aloys Zhang!
>
> Thanks
> ZhangJian He
>
> r...@apache.org  于2022年2月10日周四 11:16写道：
>
> > Congratulations, Aloys Zhang!
> >
> > --
> > Thanks
> > Xiaolong Ran
> >
> > linlin  于2022年2月10日周四 10:46写道：
> >
> > > The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Aloys
> > > Zhang
> > >
> > > (https://github.com/aloyszhang) to become a committer and we are
> pleased
> > > to
> > >
> > > announce that he has accepted.
> > >
> > > Aloys Zhang joined the Pulsar community in June 2020 and contributed a
> > lot
> > > of commits
> > > to the community, including PIP-70 which brings lightweight broker
> entry
> > > metadata
> > > to Pulsar and some other pull requests:
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+assignee%3Aaloyszhang+.
> > >
> > > Welcome and Congratulations, Aloys Zhang! Please enjoy the journey as a
> > > committer :)
> > >
> > > Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Aloys Zhang onboard!
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Releasing Pulsar-client-go 0.8.0

[Lari Hotari]

+1

-Lari

to 10. helmik. 2022 klo 4.44 r...@apache.org 
kirjoitti:

> Hello Everyone:
>
>
> I hope you’ve all been doing well. In the past two months, we have
>
> fixed a number of bugs related to connection leaks and added
>
> some new features. For more information refer to:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-go/milestone/9
> 
>
>
> For that reason, I think we should be releasing a 0.8.0 version with
>
> what we have today.
>
>
> --
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Xiaolong Ran
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Enrico Olivelli]

Gao,
The patch https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 has been merged.
I believe that is better to roll out a new RC and have Pulsar 2.9.2 released


Thanks for the good discussion

Enrico

Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 05:11 PengHui Li
 ha scritto:
>
> It should not be a blocking issue, as I mentioned before we can work around
> and the issue happens for specific conditions
> And there are some other ongoing transaction fixes, for transactions using
> the latest branch-2.9 is the best option, not 2.9.2 even contain
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
>
> So I suggest moving forward with the 2.9.2 release and focusing on the
> transaction fixes in 2.9.3.
>
> Regards,
> Penghui
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:02 AM Lin Lin  wrote:
>
> >
> > My personal opinion:
> >
> > If this is a blocking issue, we should tag the issue and raise it in the
> > discussion stage, not in the final release stage, which will waste a lot of
> > time of the release manager. But I see this issue is already closed.
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> >
> > We can evaluate the repair time of this issue. If it does not take too
> > much time, I think it can be merged into 2.9.2. If it is too late, I
> > suggest move it to 2.9.3, since there are other serious issues waiting to
> > be released, we can run in small steps.
> >

[DISCUSS] Release Pulsar 2.7.5

[Lari Hotari]

Hello Pulsar Community,

We have had several important fixes since we released 2.7.4 on Dec 27, 2021.
I propose we start the process to release 2.7.5, and I volunteer to be the
release manager.

Here [0] you can find the list of 11 commits to branch-2.7 since the 2.7.4
release.
There are 3 closed PRs and 1 open PR targeting 2.7.5 that have not yet been
cherry-picked [1].
I'll follow up on these PRs and start preparing branch-2.7 for the release.

Best Regards,

Lari

[0] - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.7.4...branch-2.7
[1] -
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.7.5+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.7

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li]

Enrico,

There are 40 closed PRs
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.3+is%3Aclosed
and most of them cherry-picked to branch-2.9, so you mean the 2.9.2
contains all of them? or just contain
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 ?
I have no objection if we roll out the new RC based on current branch-2.9
since
there are some critical fixes for transactions(Of course, I don't think
there will be any problems moving them to 2.9.3)
If only for https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192, I don't think it's
necessary to roll out the new RC.

Thanks,
Penghui

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:28 PM Enrico Olivelli  wrote:

> Gao,
> The patch https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 has been merged.
> I believe that is better to roll out a new RC and have Pulsar 2.9.2
> released
>
>
> Thanks for the good discussion
>
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 05:11 PengHui Li
>  ha scritto:
> >
> > It should not be a blocking issue, as I mentioned before we can work
> around
> > and the issue happens for specific conditions
> > And there are some other ongoing transaction fixes, for transactions
> using
> > the latest branch-2.9 is the best option, not 2.9.2 even contain
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> >
> > So I suggest moving forward with the 2.9.2 release and focusing on the
> > transaction fixes in 2.9.3.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:02 AM Lin Lin  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > My personal opinion:
> > >
> > > If this is a blocking issue, we should tag the issue and raise it in
> the
> > > discussion stage, not in the final release stage, which will waste a
> lot of
> > > time of the release manager. But I see this issue is already closed.
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > >
> > > We can evaluate the repair time of this issue. If it does not take too
> > > much time, I think it can be merged into 2.9.2. If it is too late, I
> > > suggest move it to 2.9.3, since there are other serious issues waiting
> to
> > > be released, we can run in small steps.
> > >
>