Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Pulsar Go Client 0.4.0 released

2021-03-04 Thread PengHui Li
Thanks, Xiaolong Penghui On Mar 5, 2021, 2:38 PM +0800, Jinfeng Huang , wrote: > That's exciting news. Thank you, Xiaolong~ > > Best Regards, > Jennifer > > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 12:17 PM Yong Zhang > wrote: > > > Great! > > > > Regards, > > Yong > > > > On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 at 12:13, xiaolong

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Pulsar Go Client 0.4.0 released

2021-03-04 Thread Jinfeng Huang
That's exciting news. Thank you, Xiaolong~ Best Regards, Jennifer On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 12:17 PM Yong Zhang wrote: > Great! > > Regards, > Yong > > On Fri, 5 Mar 2021 at 12:13, xiaolong ran > wrote: > >> The Apache Pulsar team is proud to announce Apache Pulsar Go Client >> version 0.4.0. >>

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Pulsar Go Client 0.4.0 released

2021-03-04 Thread xiaolong ran
The Apache Pulsar team is proud to announce Apache Pulsar Go Client version 0.4.0. Pulsar is a highly scalable, low latency messaging platform running on commodity hardware. It provides simple pub-sub semantics over topics, guaranteed at-least-once delivery of messages, automatic cursor managem

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Client Go Release 0.4.0 Candidate 1

2021-03-04 Thread xiaolong ran
The vote is now closed for Go client Release 0.4.0 Candidate 1 with 10 "+1” (5 +1 binding votes) votes, 0 +0/-0 votes, 0 -1 votes. 4 +1 bindings are: PengHui Li Masahiro Sakamoto Jia Zhai Matteo Merli 6 +1 non-binding are: Yong Zhang Xiaolong Ran Cong Bo Guangning E ran leon Yuri Mizushima -- T

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Client Go Release 0.4.0 Candidate 1

2021-03-04 Thread xiaolong ran
The vote is now closed for Go client Release 0.4.0 Candidate 1 with 10 "+1” (5 +1 binding votes) votes, 0 +0/-0 votes, 0 -1 votes. 4 +1 bindings are: PengHui Li Masahiro Sakamoto Jia Zhai Matteo Merli 6 +1 non-binding are: Yong Zhang Xiaolong Ran Cong Bo Guangning E ran leon Yuri Mizushima -- T

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Client Go Release 0.4.0 Candidate 1

2021-03-04 Thread Yong Zhang
+1 - Run produce and consumer and reader - The signature looks good now ``` gpg: Signature made δΊ” 3/ 5 11:28:12 2021 CST gpg:using RSA key C6027CC38D525CEAF0256A74772D77990D717CBC gpg: Good signature from "Penghui Li (CODE SIGNING KEY) " [unknown] gpg: WARNING: This key is not ce

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Client Go Release 0.4.0 Candidate 1

2021-03-04 Thread xiaolong ran
Thanks @zhaijia @Masahiro and Yuri. Due to some reasons, there were some problems with my signature. Now @penghui Li has helped to fix it and uploaded it to the dev warehouse again. Refer to: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/pulsar-client-go-0.4.0-candidate-1/ -- Thanks Xiaolong Ran

[GitHub] [pulsar-client-node] equanz commented on issue #142: Cumulative acknowledgement for multi-topic subscription

2021-03-04 Thread GitBox
equanz commented on issue #142: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-node/issues/142#issuecomment-791099692 > This is most likely upstream issue I think so too. This is C++ library issue. Currently, C++ library doesn't support Cumulative Ack for multi topics consumer.

[GitHub] [pulsar-manager] Brand2 edited a comment on issue #310: Support for TLS Authentication & Authorization

2021-03-04 Thread GitBox
Brand2 edited a comment on issue #310: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-manager/issues/310#issuecomment-791082173 Hi, just going to leave a comment here that I am experiencing a similar issue. It appears to be an issue when the internal Pulsar Client instance attempts to initiate the

[GitHub] [pulsar-manager] Brand2 commented on issue #310: Support for TLS Authentication & Authorization

2021-03-04 Thread GitBox
Brand2 commented on issue #310: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-manager/issues/310#issuecomment-791082173 Hi, just going to leave a comment here that I am experiencing a similar issue. It appears to be an issue when the internal Pulsar Client instance attempts to initiate the TLS aut

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Pulsar 2.7.1 Release

2021-03-04 Thread Enrico Olivelli
I am still new to the community. Please bear with me. I am fine with not upgrading BK But I would like to understand why we do not want the upgrade from BK 4.12 to 4.12 for 2.7.1 when we committed to upgrade from BK 4.10 to 4.11 on brach-2.6 for Pulsar 2.6.3 https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/