Re: [VOTE]PIP-189: No batching if only one message in batch.
+1 (binding) Penghui On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:23 PM Zike Yang wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > Great work! > > Thanks > Zike Yang > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 7:31 PM Enrico Olivelli > wrote: > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > This is a small improvement but a great impact !! > > > > Enrico > > > > Il giorno mar 26 lug 2022 alle ore 12:48 Anon Hxy > > ha scritto: > > > > > > Hi Zike > > > > > > Thanks for your reminding. I just forgot to update the issue and have > > > updated it now. I am not going to add the configuration > > > `batchingSingleMessage ` to the producer. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Xiaoyu Hou > > > > > > Zike Yang 于2022年7月26日周二 18:16写道： > > > > > > > Hi, Anon > > > > > > > > So are you going to add the configuration `batchingSingleMessage ` to > > > > the producer? I saw that it was still in the PIP: > > > > > > > > > So this may cause ((BatchMessageIdImpl) messageId) throw > > > > ClassCastException. we need to add a switch for the producer to > enable or > > > > disable this feature > > > > > ProducerBuilder batchingSingleMessage(boolean > > > > batchingSingleMessage); // default value is true > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zike Yang > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 6:05 PM Qiang Huang < > qiang.huang1...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1(non-binding) > > > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > > Qiang Huang > > > > > > > > > > mattison chao 于2022年7月25日周一 13:17写道： > > > > > > > > > > > +1(non-binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Mattison > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 at 10:35, Haiting Jiang < > jianghait...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Haiting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022/07/25 02:23:20 Anon Hxy wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Community, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a VOTE on "PIP-189: No batching if > only one > > > > > > message > > > > > > > > in batch." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The proposal can be read at [0] and the discussion thread is > > > > available > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > [1] and the PR link is available at [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Voting will stay open for at least 48h. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/16619 > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/dbq1lrv03bhtk0lr5nwm5txo9ndjplv0 > > > > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/16605 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Xiaoyu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > BR, > > > > > Qiang Huang > > > > >
Re: [Vote] PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions
+1(non-binding) yours sincerely, xiangying Meng On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 4:13 PM Yu wrote: > Hi team, > > It has been 4 months since we discussed the [Guideline] Pulsar PR Naming > Convention [1]. > > Nowadays, when reading the PR list [2], you’ll find more and more people > follow and get used to this rule. > > It improves collaboration efficiency, that is great! > > This makes us think about moving the rule forward, that is, standardizing > PR title naming using GitHub Actions, which is a more efficient way. > > So we'd like to start a vote on PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention > using GitHub Actions [3]. > > > This proposal contains: > > - Why do this? > > - How do this? > > - Pre-discussions and other thoughts > > Feel free to comment, thank you! > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/sk9ops3t94jmzc5tndk08y9khf7pj6so > > [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls > > [3] > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJlUNAHnYAbvu9UtEgCrn_oVTnVc1M5nHC19x1bFab4/edit?pli=1# > > > Yu, Max, mangoGoForward >
Re: [Vote] PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions
+1 (non-binding) Thanks Zike Yang On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 1:06 PM Xiangying Meng wrote: > > +1(non-binding) > > yours sincerely, > xiangying Meng > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 4:13 PM Yu wrote: > > > Hi team, > > > > It has been 4 months since we discussed the [Guideline] Pulsar PR Naming > > Convention [1]. > > > > Nowadays, when reading the PR list [2], you’ll find more and more people > > follow and get used to this rule. > > > > It improves collaboration efficiency, that is great! > > > > This makes us think about moving the rule forward, that is, standardizing > > PR title naming using GitHub Actions, which is a more efficient way. > > > > So we'd like to start a vote on PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention > > using GitHub Actions [3]. > > > > > > This proposal contains: > > > > - Why do this? > > > > - How do this? > > > > - Pre-discussions and other thoughts > > > > Feel free to comment, thank you! > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/sk9ops3t94jmzc5tndk08y9khf7pj6so > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls > > > > [3] > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJlUNAHnYAbvu9UtEgCrn_oVTnVc1M5nHC19x1bFab4/edit?pli=1# > > > > > > Yu, Max, mangoGoForward > >
[VOTE] PIP-195: New bucket based delayed message tracker
Hi Pulsar Community, I would like to start a VOTE on "New bucket based delayed message tracker" (PIP-195). The proposal can be read at https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/16763 and the discussion thread is available at https://lists.apache.org/thread/1krdhrvs803kb6rqzdh17q0f199nroz4 Voting will stay open for at least 48h. Thanks, Cong Zhao
