Hi everyone,
The current pulsar-manager already supports basic JWT certification,
authorization and management, and we want to further integrate with
pulsar's multi-tenant system, so we drafted the following document on the
certification and authorization of the pulsar-manager. If you have any
idea
+1 (binding)
* checksum and signature
* licenses
* package is good by following the instructions in
Release-Candidate-Validation wiki
- Sijie
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:18 PM Guangning E wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #4 for the version 0.1.0,
> as foll
+1 (non-binding)
I validated:
* checksum and signature
* package according to Release-Candidate-Validation documents
and found no problem.
Thank you for your work!
Regards,
Yuri.
--
Yuri Mizushima
yumiz...@yahoo-corp.jp
"Guangning E" wrote:
Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the
+1 (binding)
- check signatures and checksum
- compile the source
- Start FE/BE services and add environment, display each page (bin /src
distribution)
Regards,
Hiroyuki
From: Guangning E
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 15:19
To: dev@pulsar.apache.org
Sub
We had the conversation at Slack channel. I asked you to propose the plan
to mailing list, because ASF requires decisions are made in mailing list.
“
sounds good. we can merge the pull request and let both CI running for a
while. once the Github Action shows the stability, we can cut over to the
g
Understood I will send out an email for a vote.
My prior understanding was we had consensus on migration and we were
waiting for the service to go GA.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 3:52 PM Sijie Guo wrote:
> Hi Ali,
>
> To follow Apache way, you should raise a discussion or a vote for your plan
> b
Hi Ali,
To follow Apache way, you should raise a discussion or a vote for your plan
before giving out a notice like this.
Every decision should be made via email thread, otherwise it never happens.
So please please follow the Apache way.
Sijie
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 3:47 PM Ali Ahmed wrote:
The github checkin for the ci process is ready, I have added caching and
disabled runs for documentation changes. It will be merged soon but as non
required tasks for checkins so prs can still be merged without it passing.
The goal is to check for stability for a few days and then file a ticket
wi
No impact on 2.4.2.
2.4.x releases are bug fix releases for branch-2.4.
Thanks,
Sijie
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 6:17 AM Chris Bartholomew
wrote:
> +1 to putting the features that are ready in 2.5 and moving the rest to
> 2.6. The smaller the release, the smaller the regression risk.
> Does this
+1 to putting the features that are ready in 2.5 and moving the rest to 2.6.
The smaller the release, the smaller the regression risk.
Does this have any impact on 2.4.2?
Cheers,Chris
On Wednesday, November 20, 2019, 01:13:19 AM EST, Matteo Merli
wrote:
SGTM, there are several things
10 matches
Mail list logo
