date:20220214



blankensteiner commented on issue #98:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-dotpulsar/issues/98#issuecomment-1038783547


   Hi @GeroL 
   Cool, let me know when you feel it is ready for a review :-)


-- 
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: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.7.5 Candidate 1

Please help to verify this release. Thank you

-Lari

On 2022/02/11 13:47:50 Lari Hotari wrote:
> This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.7.5.
> 
> It contains the following commits after the previous release:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.7.4...v2.7.5-candidate-1
> 
> *** 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-2.7.5-candidate-1/
> 
> SHA-512 checksums:
> 
> b0d4e8c05870e0fe8cb50a80e15811b59972fc7f1d3fa93fa6cf2b61797176e80b434334aa67a5619de2a46a6ae9e51286dad524cac7af76239cda790d3574cc
>   apache-pulsar-2.7.5-bin.tar.gz
> e9a88d6847828fdb051fe2a4663e5b66beb0a066e9e170682df4e0330fe5d59d27c88908f493e2100f35a2469a8f77a97c94da752aac320bf4413aaed57570d6
>   apache-pulsar-2.7.5-src.tar.gz
> 
> Maven staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1138/
> 
> The tag to be voted upon:
> v2.7.5-candidate-1 (db8761ebb370db1ae731a807afb583ac346378fe)
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.7.5-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.
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Pulsar 2.10.0 release

> 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

Hi Penghui, 

What's the status of 2.10.0 release? What features aren't complete?

In PIP 47 
(https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-47%3A-Time-Based-Release-Plan), 
there's a high-level description of the Pulsar release process:

"A month before the release date, the release manager will cut branches and 
also publish (preferably on the wiki) a list of features that will be included 
in the release (these will typically be PIPs, but not always). We will leave 
another week for "minor" features to get in (see below for definitions), but at 
this point we will start efforts to stabilize the release branch and contribute 
mostly tests and fixes. Two weeks after branch cutting, we will announce 
code-freeze and start rolling out RCs, after which only fixes for blocking bugs 
will be merged."

Are we planning to follow this process, or is PIP 47 obsolete?

-Lari

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

When is 2.9.2 Candidate 3 planned?
What changes will it include? All current changes in branch-2.9 ?
The version has already been set to 2.9.3-SNAPSHOT in branch-2.9 with 
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14089 . If we do 2.9.2 with all current 
changes from branch-2.9, the commit for PR 14089 would have to be reverted 
before the next release.
Another possibility is to skip 2.9.2 completely and proceed directly with 2.9.3 
release.

-Lari

On 2022/02/11 08:28:58 PengHui Li wrote:
> Now, there is a regression introduced in 2.9.2
> 
> I have pushed out the fix https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14231, PTAL.
> 
> -1 from my side
> 
> Need to get the fix merged and roll out the new RC3 @Ran
> 
> Regards,
> Penghui
> 
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 9:54 PM Nicolò Boschi  wrote:
> 
> > Penghui,
> >
> >
> > I didn't know that there were so many known bugs around transactions
> > scheduled for 2.9.3, my bad.
> >
> > However, as Enrico pointed out, the issue impacts Pulsar clients that are
> > not using the transactions, so we can't just say - ok, just another bug
> > about transactions, it's not critical since they're not production ready
> > (btw, where we state that they aren't production ready on the
> > documentation?).
> >
> >
> > The workaround you mentioned is not always viable, since you can have
> > clients of different tenants/customers that are not using transactions
> > while, at the same time, a little portion that are experiencing with them.
> >
> > I agree that it is uncommon to have only one message produced. On the other
> > hand, it's a very common case where other projects using Pulsar have
> > unit/integration tests that write only one message and expect to be
> > consumed (that's because they test the application logic and not Pulsar).
> >
> >
> > Given that, it's fair to say that 2.9.2 is not worse than 2.9.1, so,
> > finally, we can go ahead.
> >
> > Looking forward to see 2.9.3 soon
> >
> >
> > I tested the artifacts, so I'll put my vote here:
> >
> >
> > +1 (non binding)
> >
> >
> > Checks:
> >
> > - Checksum and signatures
> >
> > - Apache Rat check passes
> >
> > - Compile from source w JDK11
> >
> > - Build docker image from source
> >
> > - Run Pulsar standalone and produce-consume from CLI
> >
> >
> > BR,
> >
> > Nicolò
> >
> > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 13:39 PengHui Li 
> > ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > > > Please go ahead with the release, I won't VOTE on this thread.
> > > But I hope we can follow up soon with a new release, otherwise due to
> > that
> > > bug
> > > you cannot enable transactions on your Pulsar cluster if you have to
> > > support Pulsar client that do not enable transactions
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, agree. We will follow up the 2.9.3 soon. There are other
> > > ongoing transaction fixes
> > > we will complete them ASAP and provide a version with certain guarantees
> > > for transaction stability.
> > > We are doing lots of tests these days, 2.9.3 should be a good version for
> > > transactions.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Penghui
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:37 PM Lin Lin  wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > +1(binding)
> > > >
> > > > 1. Checked the signature
> > > > 2. Start standalone
> > > > 3. Publish and consume successfully
> > > > 4. Checked function
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nicolò Boschi
> >
>

[GitHub] [pulsar-dotpulsar] ddieruf opened a new issue #99: Wondering about proto



ddieruf opened a new issue #99:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-dotpulsar/issues/99


   As I learn more about the project, I was wondering how 
`DotPulsar.Internal.PulsarApi` is generated? To be honest I was expecting to 
see a github workflow (or some automation) that creates the .cs but I don't 
(apologies if I missed it).


-- 
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: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

Hi Lari,

We have another issue that needs to confirm if it will introduce break
changes in 2.9.2,
Expected to have a result tomorrow, it related to
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13383,
We're doing more testing to make sure it doesn't introduce unexpected
behavior.

Regards,
Penghui

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 8:10 PM Lari Hotari  wrote:

> When is 2.9.2 Candidate 3 planned?
> What changes will it include? All current changes in branch-2.9 ?
> The version has already been set to 2.9.3-SNAPSHOT in branch-2.9 with
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14089 . If we do 2.9.2 with all
> current changes from branch-2.9, the commit for PR 14089 would have to be
> reverted before the next release.
> Another possibility is to skip 2.9.2 completely and proceed directly with
> 2.9.3 release.
>
> -Lari
>
> On 2022/02/11 08:28:58 PengHui Li wrote:
> > Now, there is a regression introduced in 2.9.2
> >
> > I have pushed out the fix https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14231,
> PTAL.
> >
> > -1 from my side
> >
> > Need to get the fix merged and roll out the new RC3 @Ran
> >
> > Regards,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 9:54 PM Nicolò Boschi 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Penghui,
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't know that there were so many known bugs around transactions
> > > scheduled for 2.9.3, my bad.
> > >
> > > However, as Enrico pointed out, the issue impacts Pulsar clients that
> are
> > > not using the transactions, so we can't just say - ok, just another bug
> > > about transactions, it's not critical since they're not production
> ready
> > > (btw, where we state that they aren't production ready on the
> > > documentation?).
> > >
> > >
> > > The workaround you mentioned is not always viable, since you can have
> > > clients of different tenants/customers that are not using transactions
> > > while, at the same time, a little portion that are experiencing with
> them.
> > >
> > > I agree that it is uncommon to have only one message produced. On the
> other
> > > hand, it's a very common case where other projects using Pulsar have
> > > unit/integration tests that write only one message and expect to be
> > > consumed (that's because they test the application logic and not
> Pulsar).
> > >
> > >
> > > Given that, it's fair to say that 2.9.2 is not worse than 2.9.1, so,
> > > finally, we can go ahead.
> > >
> > > Looking forward to see 2.9.3 soon
> > >
> > >
> > > I tested the artifacts, so I'll put my vote here:
> > >
> > >
> > > +1 (non binding)
> > >
> > >
> > > Checks:
> > >
> > > - Checksum and signatures
> > >
> > > - Apache Rat check passes
> > >
> > > - Compile from source w JDK11
> > >
> > > - Build docker image from source
> > >
> > > - Run Pulsar standalone and produce-consume from CLI
> > >
> > >
> > > BR,
> > >
> > > Nicolò
> > >
> > > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 13:39 PengHui Li <
> peng...@apache.org>
> > > ha
> > > scritto:
> > >
> > > > > Please go ahead with the release, I won't VOTE on this thread.
> > > > But I hope we can follow up soon with a new release, otherwise due to
> > > that
> > > > bug
> > > > you cannot enable transactions on your Pulsar cluster if you have to
> > > > support Pulsar client that do not enable transactions
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, agree. We will follow up the 2.9.3 soon. There are other
> > > > ongoing transaction fixes
> > > > we will complete them ASAP and provide a version with certain
> guarantees
> > > > for transaction stability.
> > > > We are doing lots of tests these days, 2.9.3 should be a good
> version for
> > > > transactions.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Penghui
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:37 PM Lin Lin  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > +1(binding)
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Checked the signature
> > > > > 2. Start standalone
> > > > > 3. Publish and consume successfully
> > > > > 4. Checked function
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nicolò Boschi
> > >
> >
>

[GitHub] [pulsar-client-node] hassanzia32 commented on pull request #190: Feature support oauth2 for node client



hassanzia32 commented on pull request #190:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-node/pull/190#issuecomment-1039027608


   Is there a timeline for when the 1.6.0 version is scheduled to be released?


-- 
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

Hi Lari,

There are 5 open PRs
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A2.10.0
and #14225 is a release blocker.
For #13376 and #13341, we are preparing the testing, to make sure they can
safely ship to 2.10.0
For #10478, it's a critical fix for the current message redeliver which
will impact the transaction correctness
while using failover or exclusive subscription, and it has protocol
changes, so we don't want to move it to 2.11
since the PR is done and already reviewed, just need more eyes on it.

And, for the new metadata API, we found an issue that will introduce the
cache inconsistent issue,
we are working on a fix, it should be a release blocker, otherwise,
2.10 will not able to use.

Another one is related to https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13383, we
are doing more tests to make sure
it will not introduce break changes.

> Are we planning to follow this process, or is PIP 47 obsolete?

I'm doing my best to follow PIP 47, but when seeing a potential break
change, I need to confirm it.
After all the potential break changes have been confirmed and fixed, I will
start the vote thread.

Thanks,
Penghui

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 7:24 PM Lari Hotari  wrote:

> > 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
>
> Hi Penghui,
>
> What's the status of 2.10.0 release? What features aren't complete?
>
> In PIP 47 (
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-47%3A-Time-Based-Release-Plan),
> there's a high-level description of the Pulsar release process:
>
> "A month before the release date, the release manager will cut branches
> and also publish (preferably on the wiki) a list of features that will be
> included in the release (these will typically be PIPs, but not always). We
> will leave another week for "minor" features to get in (see below for
> definitions), but at this point we will start efforts to stabilize the
> release branch and contribute mostly tests and fixes. Two weeks after
> branch cutting, we will announce code-freeze and start rolling out RCs,
> after which only fixes for blocking bugs will be merged."
>
> Are we planning to follow this process, or is PIP 47 obsolete?
>
> -Lari
>

[GitHub] [pulsar-dotpulsar] blankensteiner commented on issue #99: Wondering about proto



blankensteiner commented on issue #99:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-dotpulsar/issues/99#issuecomment-1039056022


   Hi @ddieruf 
   It's done using https://protogen.marcgravell.com/


-- 
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: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.7.5 Candidate 1

2022-02-14 Thread Haiting Jiang

+1

Checks:

- Checksum and signatures

- Compile from source w JDK11

- Validate Pub/Sub and Java Functions [1]

- Validate Connectors [1]

- Validate Stateful Functions [1]

[1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/Release-Candidate-Validation

Thanks,
Haiting

On 2022/02/11 13:47:50 Lari Hotari wrote:
> This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.7.5.
> 
> It contains the following commits after the previous release:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.7.4...v2.7.5-candidate-1
> 
> *** 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-2.7.5-candidate-1/
> 
> SHA-512 checksums:
> 
> b0d4e8c05870e0fe8cb50a80e15811b59972fc7f1d3fa93fa6cf2b61797176e80b434334aa67a5619de2a46a6ae9e51286dad524cac7af76239cda790d3574cc
>   apache-pulsar-2.7.5-bin.tar.gz
> e9a88d6847828fdb051fe2a4663e5b66beb0a066e9e170682df4e0330fe5d59d27c88908f493e2100f35a2469a8f77a97c94da752aac320bf4413aaed57570d6
>   apache-pulsar-2.7.5-src.tar.gz
> 
> Maven staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1138/
> 
> The tag to be voted upon:
> v2.7.5-candidate-1 (db8761ebb370db1ae731a807afb583ac346378fe)
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.7.5-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.
>

[GitHub] [pulsar-dotpulsar] ddieruf commented on issue #99: Wondering about proto



ddieruf commented on issue #99:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-dotpulsar/issues/99#issuecomment-1039090818


   Hi, thank you for that. Does the master branch follow the latest version of 
Pulsar?


-- 
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-dotpulsar] blankensteiner commented on issue #99: Wondering about proto



blankensteiner commented on issue #99:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-dotpulsar/issues/99#issuecomment-1039101820


   Not sure I understand what you mean by that?


-- 
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

JDK 17 runtime compatibility

2022-02-14 Thread Nicolò Boschi

Dear Pulsar community,

I would like to start a discussion about having a plan to make Pulsar
runtime-compatible with JDK 17.

The goal is to run Pulsar using JDK17 at runtime, benefitting from the
latest JVM performance improvements and features.

The non-goal is to deprecate JDK8 or JDK11 runtime compatibility. The java
compiler *release* flag will be kept to 8 (this change deserves another
discussion thread).

*Build*

At the moment, the build command (mvn clean install -DskipTests) works well
using JDK17.

We fixed a lot of unit tests and other issues found using JDK17 removing
PowerMockito improper usages: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14098

Other small pulls were merged fixing other kinds of issues (all related to
the tests themself and not the production code).

*Runtime compatibility*

Currently I haven't seen severe issues running Pulsar on JDK17.

For testing purposes, I’ve created a simple image which pulls the Pulsar
master and installs JDK17-zulu instead of JDK11.

I've tried running the docker image in a Kubernetes environment (deploying
it with the Apache Pulsar helm chart), testing a few scenario:

* Produce and consume message (pulsar cli, pulsar perf)

* Functions/Connectors (embedding Nar files)

All the components/pods are working without visible issues. However my
tests weren't under high traffic and a lot of Pulsar features were not
involved in the tests.

The main problems might be caused by the restrictions around reflection
usage introduced in JDK17 JEP 403: Strongly Encapsulate JDK Internals

We may need to unlock some packages to reflection to keep some
optimizations, for example for BookKeeper Native IO (
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/blob/master/bookkeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/bookkeeper/util/NativeIO.java#L98
)

It would be great to chase other improvements to be explicitly unlocked for
other low-level libraries (Netty, GRPC...)

*Continuous Integration*

To maintain the support for JDK17 we need to switch all the CI jobs to
JDK17; the idea is to replace JDK11 completely. We could - not sure - keep
a single job for JDK11 compatibility, like we do with JDK8.

*Docker distribution*

After we get the Pulsar master CI stable, we can move the official Docker
images to JDK17 (currently on JDK11).

*Proposal plan*

We can start moving the CI to JDK17 after the branch-2.10 has been cut and
targeting JDK17 runtime support for Pulsar 2.11

WDYT?

BR,
Nicolò Boschi

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP 141 : Pulsar BOM

2022-02-14 Thread Nicolò Boschi

Great idea!
+1

Il giorno mar 8 feb 2022 alle ore 12:18 Christophe Bornet <
bornet.ch...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like to open a discussion on PIP 141 : Pulsar BOM
>
> The PIP is here : https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/14168
>
> ## Motivation
>
> When designing NAR modules loaded by Nifi in the broker such as protocol
> handlers, proxy extensions, Pulsar IO connectors, etc..., it's important
> that the dependencies that are common to the module and the broker are as
> close as possible to prevent incompatible library exceptions
> (NoSuchClassError, NoSuchMethodError, IncompatibleClassChangeError, etc
> ...) at runtime. If a class is both in the NAR and in the broker, the
> broker one will be loaded.
>
> ## Goal
>
> This proposal is to define a BOM (Bill Of Materials) for Pulsar.
> A BOM is a special kind of POM that contains all the dependency versions
> that are used by the project and can be imported in another project.
> Currently there is a `dependencyManagement` section in Pulsar's parent POM
> but it's not always possible to derive from this parent POM as it imports a
> lot more things than the dependency versions and external projects usually
> prefer to have their own parent POM.
> External projects can import this BOM and use the same library versions as
> Pulsar at compile/test time.
>
> ## API Changes
>
> No API changes
>
> ## Implementation
>
> The `dependencyManagement` section of Pulsar's parent POM and related
> properties will be extracted in a POM and put in a `pulsar-bom` directory.
> The `pulsar-bom` artifact shall be built and released independently from
> the rest of Pulsar project (not a maven module).
> The Pulsar's parent POM `dependencyManagement` section is replaced by:
>
>   
> 
>   
> org.apache.pulsar
> pulsar-bom
> 2.10.0-SNAPSHOT
> pom
> import
>   
> 
>   
>
> The CI will have to build `pulsar-bom` before building Pulsar.
>
> ## Reject Alternatives
>
> The BOM could be part of a distinct Git project. This would be harder to
> handle for contributions that modify both the BOM and Pulsar.
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your feedback !
>
> Christophe
>


-- 
Nicolò Boschi

Re: JDK 17 runtime compatibility

2022-02-14 Thread Christophe Bornet

Big +1

Le lun. 14 févr. 2022 à 14:54, Nicolò Boschi  a
écrit :

> Dear Pulsar community,
>
>
> I would like to start a discussion about having a plan to make Pulsar
> runtime-compatible with JDK 17.
>
>
> The goal is to run Pulsar using JDK17 at runtime, benefitting from the
> latest JVM performance improvements and features.
>
>
> The non-goal is to deprecate JDK8 or JDK11 runtime compatibility. The java
> compiler *release* flag will be kept to 8 (this change deserves another
> discussion thread).
>
>
> *Build*
>
>
> At the moment, the build command (mvn clean install -DskipTests) works well
> using JDK17.
>
>
> We fixed a lot of unit tests and other issues found using JDK17 removing
> PowerMockito improper usages: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14098
>
> Other small pulls were merged fixing other kinds of issues (all related to
> the tests themself and not the production code).
>
>
> *Runtime compatibility*
>
>
> Currently I haven't seen severe issues running Pulsar on JDK17.
>
> For testing purposes, I’ve created a simple image which pulls the Pulsar
> master and installs JDK17-zulu instead of JDK11.
>
> I've tried running the docker image in a Kubernetes environment (deploying
> it with the Apache Pulsar helm chart), testing a few scenario:
>
> * Produce and consume message (pulsar cli, pulsar perf)
>
> * Functions/Connectors (embedding Nar files)
>
>
> All the components/pods are working without visible issues. However my
> tests weren't under high traffic and a lot of Pulsar features were not
> involved in the tests.
>
>
> The main problems might be caused by the restrictions around reflection
> usage introduced in JDK17 JEP 403: Strongly Encapsulate JDK Internals
> 
>
> We may need to unlock some packages to reflection to keep some
> optimizations, for example for BookKeeper Native IO (
>
> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/blob/master/bookkeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/bookkeeper/util/NativeIO.java#L98
> )
>
>
> It would be great to chase other improvements to be explicitly unlocked for
> other low-level libraries (Netty, GRPC...)
>
>
>
> *Continuous Integration*
>
> To maintain the support for JDK17 we need to switch all the CI jobs to
> JDK17; the idea is to replace JDK11 completely. We could - not sure - keep
> a single job for JDK11 compatibility, like we do with JDK8.
>
>
>
> *Docker distribution*
>
> After we get the Pulsar master CI stable, we can move the official Docker
> images to JDK17 (currently on JDK11).
>
>
>
> *Proposal plan*
>
> We can start moving the CI to JDK17 after the branch-2.10 has been cut and
> targeting JDK17 runtime support for Pulsar 2.11
>
>
>
>
> WDYT?
>
> BR,
> Nicolò Boschi
>

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP 141 : Pulsar BOM

2022-02-14 Thread Enrico Olivelli

Christophe,
It is not clear to me who is the consumer of this BOM.

Java clients should depend on pulsar-client
Pulsar IO and Functions have their own dependencies.

So what's the target? Protocol Handlers? Servlets? Proxy extensions?


Enrico

Il Lun 14 Feb 2022, 15:05 Nicolò Boschi  ha scritto:

> Great idea!
> +1
>
> Il giorno mar 8 feb 2022 alle ore 12:18 Christophe Bornet <
> bornet.ch...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I'd like to open a discussion on PIP 141 : Pulsar BOM
> >
> > The PIP is here : https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/14168
> >
> > ## Motivation
> >
> > When designing NAR modules loaded by Nifi in the broker such as protocol
> > handlers, proxy extensions, Pulsar IO connectors, etc..., it's important
> > that the dependencies that are common to the module and the broker are as
> > close as possible to prevent incompatible library exceptions
> > (NoSuchClassError, NoSuchMethodError, IncompatibleClassChangeError, etc
> > ...) at runtime. If a class is both in the NAR and in the broker, the
> > broker one will be loaded.
> >
> > ## Goal
> >
> > This proposal is to define a BOM (Bill Of Materials) for Pulsar.
> > A BOM is a special kind of POM that contains all the dependency versions
> > that are used by the project and can be imported in another project.
> > Currently there is a `dependencyManagement` section in Pulsar's parent
> POM
> > but it's not always possible to derive from this parent POM as it
> imports a
> > lot more things than the dependency versions and external projects
> usually
> > prefer to have their own parent POM.
> > External projects can import this BOM and use the same library versions
> as
> > Pulsar at compile/test time.
> >
> > ## API Changes
> >
> > No API changes
> >
> > ## Implementation
> >
> > The `dependencyManagement` section of Pulsar's parent POM and related
> > properties will be extracted in a POM and put in a `pulsar-bom`
> directory.
> > The `pulsar-bom` artifact shall be built and released independently from
> > the rest of Pulsar project (not a maven module).
> > The Pulsar's parent POM `dependencyManagement` section is replaced by:
> >
> >   
> > 
> >   
> > org.apache.pulsar
> > pulsar-bom
> > 2.10.0-SNAPSHOT
> > pom
> > import
> >   
> > 
> >   
> >
> > The CI will have to build `pulsar-bom` before building Pulsar.
> >
> > ## Reject Alternatives
> >
> > The BOM could be part of a distinct Git project. This would be harder to
> > handle for contributions that modify both the BOM and Pulsar.
> >
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your feedback !
> >
> > Christophe
> >
>
>
> --
> Nicolò Boschi
>

[GitHub] [pulsar-client-node] haphut opened a new issue #193: Consider making "type" optional for AuthenticationOauth2



haphut opened a new issue #193:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-node/issues/193


   The C++ client does not seem to use the property `type`. Yet [it has been 
marked as 
required](https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-node/blob/f696d2fd958b702122ca7a21f84642ea855ec25d/index.d.ts#L180).
 Please verify whether it is actually required and make it optional if not.
   
   Thanks a bunch for your work on the Node.js client!


-- 
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-dotpulsar] ddieruf commented on issue #99: Wondering about proto



ddieruf commented on issue #99:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-dotpulsar/issues/99#issuecomment-1039344616


   First, please forgive my potential lack of grpc knowledge...
   
   I am making the assumption that the main Pulsar project produces some sort 
of .proto definition for a client to implement. You are using the above 
protogen tool to create the .cs implementing it. That definition file is a part 
of a certain version of Pulsar.


-- 
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

Managing Projects Independently

2022-02-14 Thread Dave Fisher

The ASF has a number of resources created from decades of fostering hundreds of 
software communities in their missions to build amazing software components. 
One of the committees is the Community Development PMC (ComDev)

Please review the following page: 
https://community.apache.org/projectIndependence.html

Particularly:

Apache projects are managed independently
Apache projects must be managed independently, and PMCs must ensure that they 
are acting in the best interests of the project as a whole. It is similarly 
important that the PMC clearly show this independence within their project 
community. The perception that the PMC is run independently and without 
favoring any specific third parties over others is important to help new 
contributors feel comfortable both joining the community and contributing their 
work. A community that obviously favors one specific vendor in some exclusive 
way will often discourage new contributors from competing vendors, and this 
would be issue for the long-term health of the project.

All the best,
Dave

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP 141 : Pulsar BOM

2022-02-14 Thread Christophe Bornet

For plugins that are part of the main project, you get the dependencies
from the parent POM. But for third-party plugins (including pulsar-io,
protocol handlers and proxy-extensions), you generally don't want to
inherit from the Pulsar parent POM and it would be great to be able to
import a BOM instead.

Christophe

Le lun. 14 févr. 2022 à 16:25, Enrico Olivelli  a
écrit :

> Christophe,
> It is not clear to me who is the consumer of this BOM.
>
> Java clients should depend on pulsar-client
> Pulsar IO and Functions have their own dependencies.
>
> So what's the target? Protocol Handlers? Servlets? Proxy extensions?
>
>
> Enrico
>
> Il Lun 14 Feb 2022, 15:05 Nicolò Boschi  ha scritto:
>
> > Great idea!
> > +1
> >
> > Il giorno mar 8 feb 2022 alle ore 12:18 Christophe Bornet <
> > bornet.ch...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I'd like to open a discussion on PIP 141 : Pulsar BOM
> > >
> > > The PIP is here : https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/14168
> > >
> > > ## Motivation
> > >
> > > When designing NAR modules loaded by Nifi in the broker such as
> protocol
> > > handlers, proxy extensions, Pulsar IO connectors, etc..., it's
> important
> > > that the dependencies that are common to the module and the broker are
> as
> > > close as possible to prevent incompatible library exceptions
> > > (NoSuchClassError, NoSuchMethodError, IncompatibleClassChangeError, etc
> > > ...) at runtime. If a class is both in the NAR and in the broker, the
> > > broker one will be loaded.
> > >
> > > ## Goal
> > >
> > > This proposal is to define a BOM (Bill Of Materials) for Pulsar.
> > > A BOM is a special kind of POM that contains all the dependency
> versions
> > > that are used by the project and can be imported in another project.
> > > Currently there is a `dependencyManagement` section in Pulsar's parent
> > POM
> > > but it's not always possible to derive from this parent POM as it
> > imports a
> > > lot more things than the dependency versions and external projects
> > usually
> > > prefer to have their own parent POM.
> > > External projects can import this BOM and use the same library versions
> > as
> > > Pulsar at compile/test time.
> > >
> > > ## API Changes
> > >
> > > No API changes
> > >
> > > ## Implementation
> > >
> > > The `dependencyManagement` section of Pulsar's parent POM and related
> > > properties will be extracted in a POM and put in a `pulsar-bom`
> > directory.
> > > The `pulsar-bom` artifact shall be built and released independently
> from
> > > the rest of Pulsar project (not a maven module).
> > > The Pulsar's parent POM `dependencyManagement` section is replaced by:
> > >
> > >   
> > > 
> > >   
> > > org.apache.pulsar
> > > pulsar-bom
> > > 2.10.0-SNAPSHOT
> > > pom
> > > import
> > >   
> > > 
> > >   
> > >
> > > The CI will have to build `pulsar-bom` before building Pulsar.
> > >
> > > ## Reject Alternatives
> > >
> > > The BOM could be part of a distinct Git project. This would be harder
> to
> > > handle for contributions that modify both the BOM and Pulsar.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for your feedback !
> > >
> > > Christophe
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nicolò Boschi
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP 141 : Pulsar BOM

2022-02-14 Thread Enrico Olivelli

Il giorno lun 14 feb 2022 alle 18:51 Christophe Bornet <
bornet.ch...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> For plugins that are part of the main project, you get the dependencies
> from the parent POM. But for third-party plugins (including pulsar-io,
> protocol handlers and proxy-extensions),


So the problem is mostly for protocol handlers.

Se have probably a general problem about classpath  isolation,
but probably the major problem is that there is no public API for PHs and
you tend to use internal Pulsar APIs.
Adding new libraries is hard, and also you don’t have control about which
version is loaded, probably even if you load the same version that we in
Pulsar


Enrico


you generally don't want to
> inherit from the Pulsar parent POM and it would be great to be able to
> import a BOM instead.
>
> Christophe
>
> Le lun. 14 févr. 2022 à 16:25, Enrico Olivelli  a
> écrit :
>
> > Christophe,
> > It is not clear to me who is the consumer of this BOM.
> >
> > Java clients should depend on pulsar-client
> > Pulsar IO and Functions have their own dependencies.
> >
> > So what's the target? Protocol Handlers? Servlets? Proxy extensions?
> >
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> > Il Lun 14 Feb 2022, 15:05 Nicolò Boschi  ha
> scritto:
> >
> > > Great idea!
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Il giorno mar 8 feb 2022 alle ore 12:18 Christophe Bornet <
> > > bornet.ch...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to open a discussion on PIP 141 : Pulsar BOM
> > > >
> > > > The PIP is here : https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/14168
> > > >
> > > > ## Motivation
> > > >
> > > > When designing NAR modules loaded by Nifi in the broker such as
> > protocol
> > > > handlers, proxy extensions, Pulsar IO connectors, etc..., it's
> > important
> > > > that the dependencies that are common to the module and the broker
> are
> > as
> > > > close as possible to prevent incompatible library exceptions
> > > > (NoSuchClassError, NoSuchMethodError, IncompatibleClassChangeError,
> etc
> > > > ...) at runtime. If a class is both in the NAR and in the broker, the
> > > > broker one will be loaded.
> > > >
> > > > ## Goal
> > > >
> > > > This proposal is to define a BOM (Bill Of Materials) for Pulsar.
> > > > A BOM is a special kind of POM that contains all the dependency
> > versions
> > > > that are used by the project and can be imported in another project.
> > > > Currently there is a `dependencyManagement` section in Pulsar's
> parent
> > > POM
> > > > but it's not always possible to derive from this parent POM as it
> > > imports a
> > > > lot more things than the dependency versions and external projects
> > > usually
> > > > prefer to have their own parent POM.
> > > > External projects can import this BOM and use the same library
> versions
> > > as
> > > > Pulsar at compile/test time.
> > > >
> > > > ## API Changes
> > > >
> > > > No API changes
> > > >
> > > > ## Implementation
> > > >
> > > > The `dependencyManagement` section of Pulsar's parent POM and related
> > > > properties will be extracted in a POM and put in a `pulsar-bom`
> > > directory.
> > > > The `pulsar-bom` artifact shall be built and released independently
> > from
> > > > the rest of Pulsar project (not a maven module).
> > > > The Pulsar's parent POM `dependencyManagement` section is replaced
> by:
> > > >
> > > >   
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > > org.apache.pulsar
> > > > pulsar-bom
> > > > 2.10.0-SNAPSHOT
> > > > pom
> > > > import
> > > >   
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > >
> > > > The CI will have to build `pulsar-bom` before building Pulsar.
> > > >
> > > > ## Reject Alternatives
> > > >
> > > > The BOM could be part of a distinct Git project. This would be harder
> > to
> > > > handle for contributions that modify both the BOM and Pulsar.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot for your feedback !
> > > >
> > > > Christophe
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nicolò Boschi
> > >
> >
>

[GitHub] [pulsar-dotpulsar] blankensteiner commented on issue #99: Wondering about proto



blankensteiner commented on issue #99:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-dotpulsar/issues/99#issuecomment-1039534679


   Ah, yes it's here: 
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/pulsar-common/src/main/proto/PulsarApi.proto
 and we generated the cs-file based on version 281163b of that file (as noted 
in the cs-file).
   I don't know what version of Pulsar that is, but I don't think that matters. 
They have kept backward compatibility and even though we created the cs-file 
based on that version, it doesn't mean that all functionality is supported (e.g 
Transactions).
   Hope that answers your question :-)


-- 
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: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.7.5 Candidate 1

- Verified the signature
- Start the standalone and checked message publish and consumption
- Validate Cassandra connector
- Validate stateful function

Hi Lari, I have checked the CI status for branch-2.7
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commits/branch-2.7
There are 4 failed tests, could you please help check the failed test and
make sure
the tests get passed for 2.7.5? Since we don't run any checks before or
after cherry-picking,
I usually check the CI after cherry-picking, if there are failed tests,
need to confirm if it related to breaking changes
or a flaky test to retry.

If all tests pass, please treat my validation as +1

Thanks,
Penghui

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 9:12 PM Haiting Jiang 
wrote:

> +1
>
> Checks:
>
> - Checksum and signatures
>
> - Compile from source w JDK11
>
> - Validate Pub/Sub and Java Functions [1]
>
> - Validate Connectors [1]
>
> - Validate Stateful Functions [1]
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/Release-Candidate-Validation
>
> Thanks,
> Haiting
>
> On 2022/02/11 13:47:50 Lari Hotari wrote:
> > This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.7.5.
> >
> > It contains the following commits after the previous release:
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.7.4...v2.7.5-candidate-1
> >
> > *** 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-2.7.5-candidate-1/
> >
> > SHA-512 checksums:
> >
> >
> b0d4e8c05870e0fe8cb50a80e15811b59972fc7f1d3fa93fa6cf2b61797176e80b434334aa67a5619de2a46a6ae9e51286dad524cac7af76239cda790d3574cc
> apache-pulsar-2.7.5-bin.tar.gz
> >
> e9a88d6847828fdb051fe2a4663e5b66beb0a066e9e170682df4e0330fe5d59d27c88908f493e2100f35a2469a8f77a97c94da752aac320bf4413aaed57570d6
> apache-pulsar-2.7.5-src.tar.gz
> >
> > Maven staging repo:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1138/
> >
> > The tag to be voted upon:
> > v2.7.5-candidate-1 (db8761ebb370db1ae731a807afb583ac346378fe)
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.7.5-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.
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Pulsar 2.10.0 release

Hi all

Please help review this PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14283
which should be a blocker for the 2.10.0 release.
Tboy is working on another fix to fix the breaking change introduced in
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13383.
After the PR is available for review, I will update here.

Regards,
Penghui

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 8:55 PM PengHui Li  wrote:

> Hi Lari,
>
> There are 5 open PRs
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A2.10.0
> and #14225 is a release blocker.
> For #13376 and #13341, we are preparing the testing, to make sure they can
> safely ship to 2.10.0
> For #10478, it's a critical fix for the current message redeliver which
> will impact the transaction correctness
> while using failover or exclusive subscription, and it has protocol
> changes, so we don't want to move it to 2.11
> since the PR is done and already reviewed, just need more eyes on it.
>
> And, for the new metadata API, we found an issue that will introduce the
> cache inconsistent issue,
> we are working on a fix, it should be a release blocker, otherwise,
> 2.10 will not able to use.
>
> Another one is related to https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13383, we
> are doing more tests to make sure
> it will not introduce break changes.
>
> > Are we planning to follow this process, or is PIP 47 obsolete?
>
> I'm doing my best to follow PIP 47, but when seeing a potential break
> change, I need to confirm it.
> After all the potential break changes have been confirmed and fixed, I
> will start the vote thread.
>
> Thanks,
> Penghui
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 7:24 PM Lari Hotari  wrote:
>
>> > 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
>>
>> Hi Penghui,
>>
>> What's the status of 2.10.0 release? What features aren't complete?
>>
>> In PIP 47 (
>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-47%3A-Time-Based-Release-Plan),
>> there's a high-level description of the Pulsar release process:
>>
>> "A month before the release date, the release manager will cut branches
>> and also publish (preferably on the wiki) a list of features that will be
>> included in the release (these will typically be PIPs, but not always). We
>> will leave another week for "minor" features to get in (see below for
>> definitions), but at this point we will start efforts to stabilize the
>> release branch and contribute mostly tests and fixes. Two weeks after
>> branch cutting, we will announce code-freeze and start rolling out RCs,
>> after which only fixes for blocking bugs will be merged."
>>
>> Are we planning to follow this process, or is PIP 47 obsolete?
>>
>> -Lari
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Pulsar 2.8.3

Hi Michael,

I noticed the tag v2.8.3-candidate-1 has been created,
as I updated in 2.9.2 and 2.10.0 release emails,
There is a breaking change introduced by
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13383
We are working on a fix for now.

Regards,
Penghui

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 7:37 AM Neng Lu  wrote:

> +1 non-binding
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 1:09 AM Hang Chen  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Best,
> > Hang
> >
> > PengHui Li  于2022年2月10日周四 12:06写道：
> > >
> > > +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 <
> mmarsh...@apache.org>
> > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Neng
>

[VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.8.3 Candidate 1

2022-02-14 Thread Michael Marshall

This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.8.3.

It fixes the following issues:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.8.2...v2.8.3-candidate-1

*** 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-2.8.3-candidate-1/

SHA-512 checksums:

b9d48a92404bacb0505406f57974c9e1ceecfede12cdc286656dbf1ee75c204c0af67540945a5d7b0fb1e295b6f06317444932359fd9af29d4ee8ceefa13f0ee
 apache-pulsar-2.8.3-bin.tar.gz
d31ee747ba2a796230dd052994214028761813057967e92599dcf51e1b64726178b5ba6e3676cc5e947d60ee0411b0f02cb1ffcd91ba8a4138d220bbec7b6731
 apache-pulsar-2.8.3-src.tar.gz

Unofficial Docker images:
michaelmarshall/pulsar:2.8.3-rc1
michaelmarshall/pulsar-all:2.8.3-rc1
michaelmarshall/pulsar-standalone:2.8.3-rc1
michaelmarshall/pulsar-grafana:2.8.3-rc1

Maven staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1139/

The tag to be voted upon:
v2.8.3-candidate-1 (f3234374b50ae25d5afc9e882d1e3eb50a79fffd)
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.8.3-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.

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Pulsar 2.8.3

2022-02-14 Thread Michael Marshall

Hi Penghui,

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, I sent out the VOTE email for
2.8.3 before I read this email. Please let me know when there is a fix
in place. In this case, we'll need to create an RC 2.

Thanks,
Michael


On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:38 PM PengHui Li  wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> I noticed the tag v2.8.3-candidate-1 has been created,
> as I updated in 2.9.2 and 2.10.0 release emails,
> There is a breaking change introduced by
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13383
> We are working on a fix for now.
>
> Regards,
> Penghui
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 7:37 AM Neng Lu  wrote:
>
> > +1 non-binding
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 1:09 AM Hang Chen  wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Hang
> > >
> > > PengHui Li  于2022年2月10日周四 12:06写道：
> > > >
> > > > +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 <
> > mmarsh...@apache.org>
> > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards,
> > Neng
> >

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Pulsar 2.8.3

2022-02-14 Thread Michael Marshall

Hi Penghui,

Do we have an issue or a more specific description of the "breaking
change" and its fix?

This bug is holding up the 2.8.3 and 2.9.2 releases, but you haven't
shared any specific details. Given that in the 2.10 thread, you say
Tboy is working on a fix, it would be great if you or Tboy could share
some additional details and the proposed fix so that the community can
start reviewing and testing the fix, too.

Thanks,
Michael





On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:59 PM Michael Marshall  wrote:
>
> Hi Penghui,
>
> Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, I sent out the VOTE email for
> 2.8.3 before I read this email. Please let me know when there is a fix
> in place. In this case, we'll need to create an RC 2.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:38 PM PengHui Li  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > I noticed the tag v2.8.3-candidate-1 has been created,
> > as I updated in 2.9.2 and 2.10.0 release emails,
> > There is a breaking change introduced by
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13383
> > We are working on a fix for now.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 7:37 AM Neng Lu  wrote:
> >
> > > +1 non-binding
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 1:09 AM Hang Chen  wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Hang
> > > >
> > > > PengHui Li  于2022年2月10日周四 12:06写道：
> > > > >
> > > > > +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 <
> > > mmarsh...@apache.org>
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Neng
> > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Pulsar 2.8.3

Hi Micheal

Here is the context https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14288
it fixed a breaking change in branch-2.8. Without this fix we will introduce
breaking change in 2.8.3

Thanks,
Penghui

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 1:16 PM Michael Marshall 
wrote:

> Hi Penghui,
>
> Do we have an issue or a more specific description of the "breaking
> change" and its fix?
>
> This bug is holding up the 2.8.3 and 2.9.2 releases, but you haven't
> shared any specific details. Given that in the 2.10 thread, you say
> Tboy is working on a fix, it would be great if you or Tboy could share
> some additional details and the proposed fix so that the community can
> start reviewing and testing the fix, too.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:59 PM Michael Marshall 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Penghui,
> >
> > Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, I sent out the VOTE email for
> > 2.8.3 before I read this email. Please let me know when there is a fix
> > in place. In this case, we'll need to create an RC 2.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:38 PM PengHui Li  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Michael,
> > >
> > > I noticed the tag v2.8.3-candidate-1 has been created,
> > > as I updated in 2.9.2 and 2.10.0 release emails,
> > > There is a breaking change introduced by
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13383
> > > We are working on a fix for now.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Penghui
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 7:37 AM Neng Lu  wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 non-binding
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 1:09 AM Hang Chen 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Hang
> > > > >
> > > > > PengHui Li  于2022年2月10日周四 12:06写道：
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +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 <
> > > > mmarsh...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Neng
> > > >
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.8.3 Candidate 1

Sorry Michael

There is a breaking change introduced in branch-2.8.
Sorry for that I forget to update the 2.8.3 release process,
Only update the context in 2.9.2 and 2.10.0.

We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it

The fixed PR is https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14288

And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
Please check the list
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.8.3+is%3Aclosed+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.8+
If they are not a requirement for 2.8.3, we can move it to the next version.
For https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14246, I can confirm, without
this fix, we will also introduce breaking change in 2.8.3

I have to give my -1 here

Regards,
Penghui

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:56 PM Michael Marshall 
wrote:

> This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.8.3.
>
> It fixes the following issues:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.8.2...v2.8.3-candidate-1
>
> *** 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-2.8.3-candidate-1/
>
> SHA-512 checksums:
>
>
> b9d48a92404bacb0505406f57974c9e1ceecfede12cdc286656dbf1ee75c204c0af67540945a5d7b0fb1e295b6f06317444932359fd9af29d4ee8ceefa13f0ee
>  apache-pulsar-2.8.3-bin.tar.gz
>
> d31ee747ba2a796230dd052994214028761813057967e92599dcf51e1b64726178b5ba6e3676cc5e947d60ee0411b0f02cb1ffcd91ba8a4138d220bbec7b6731
>  apache-pulsar-2.8.3-src.tar.gz
>
> Unofficial Docker images:
> michaelmarshall/pulsar:2.8.3-rc1
> michaelmarshall/pulsar-all:2.8.3-rc1
> michaelmarshall/pulsar-standalone:2.8.3-rc1
> michaelmarshall/pulsar-grafana:2.8.3-rc1
>
> Maven staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1139/
>
> The tag to be voted upon:
> v2.8.3-candidate-1 (f3234374b50ae25d5afc9e882d1e3eb50a79fffd)
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.8.3-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.
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Pulsar 2.10.0 release

Hi all,

The PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14288 needs more eyes to
unblock the 2.10.0 release.
The PR fixes a breaking change in the branch-2.9, branch-2.8, and master
branches.

Thanks,
Penghui

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:32 PM PengHui Li  wrote:

> Hi all
>
> Please help review this PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14283
> which should be a blocker for the 2.10.0 release.
> Tboy is working on another fix to fix the breaking change introduced in
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13383.
> After the PR is available for review, I will update here.
>
> Regards,
> Penghui
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 8:55 PM PengHui Li  wrote:
>
>> Hi Lari,
>>
>> There are 5 open PRs
>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A2.10.0
>> and #14225 is a release blocker.
>> For #13376 and #13341, we are preparing the testing, to make sure they
>> can safely ship to 2.10.0
>> For #10478, it's a critical fix for the current message redeliver which
>> will impact the transaction correctness
>> while using failover or exclusive subscription, and it has protocol
>> changes, so we don't want to move it to 2.11
>> since the PR is done and already reviewed, just need more eyes on it.
>>
>> And, for the new metadata API, we found an issue that will introduce the
>> cache inconsistent issue,
>> we are working on a fix, it should be a release blocker, otherwise,
>> 2.10 will not able to use.
>>
>> Another one is related to https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13383,
>> we are doing more tests to make sure
>> it will not introduce break changes.
>>
>> > Are we planning to follow this process, or is PIP 47 obsolete?
>>
>> I'm doing my best to follow PIP 47, but when seeing a potential break
>> change, I need to confirm it.
>> After all the potential break changes have been confirmed and fixed, I
>> will start the vote thread.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Penghui
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 7:24 PM Lari Hotari  wrote:
>>
>>> > 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
>>>
>>> Hi Penghui,
>>>
>>> What's the status of 2.10.0 release? What features aren't complete?
>>>
>>> In PIP 47 (
>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-47%3A-Time-Based-Release-Plan),
>>> there's a high-level description of the Pulsar release process:
>>>
>>> "A month before the release date, the release manager will cut branches
>>> and also publish (preferably on the wiki) a list of features that will be
>>> included in the release (these will typically be PIPs, but not always). We
>>> will leave another week for "minor" features to get in (see below for
>>> definitions), but at this point we will start efforts to stabilize the
>>> release branch and contribute mostly tests and fixes. Two weeks after
>>> branch cutting, we will announce code-freeze and start rolling out RCs,
>>> after which only fixes for blocking bugs will be merged."
>>>
>>> Are we planning to follow this process, or is PIP 47 obsolete?
>>>
>>> -Lari
>>>
>>

[ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Li Li

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

Li Li has done a great contribution to Pulsar Website, documentation.

Welcome and Congratulations, Li Li!

Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Li Li onboard!

Best Regards,
Penghui Li on behalf of the Pulsar PMC

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP 141 : Pulsar BOM