Hi All,
After discussing with Penghui and HangChen about the consistency of topic and
schema deletion, our preliminary conclusion is to drop the `--deleteSchema`
parameter in `bin/pulsar-admin topics delete`, which can ensure the schema is
deleted when the topic is deleted, and the default va
I’m going to work through
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/site2/README.md
I’ll make sure that any changes related to the asf-site branch don’t have issue
with that.
We may want to be able to publish alternative web designs to a staging sites.
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 3:02 PM, Dave Fi
I’ve updated my fork of apache/pulsar
I’m not seeing how to run the workflow "CI - Pulsar Website build”. Any ideas?
If not then I’m going to need to test locally and it will take some time to
ready it.
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 1:15 PM, Matteo Merli wrote:
>
> Yes, that should work.
>
> After
Yes, that should work.
After that we can go ahead and remove `asf-site` from the main repo,
although we need to make it "unprotected" to be able to do so.
--
Matteo Merli
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:46 PM Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> If we change ORIGIN_REPO[1] to point to a new pulsar-site repos.
>
If we change ORIGIN_REPO[1] to point to a new pulsar-site repos.
Then with the correct .asf.yaml file changes we can remove the asf-site branch.
I see that the publish is run from this workflow [2]
Let me think about a PR to make the move.
Regards,
Dave
[1]
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/site2/tools/publish-website.sh
--
Matteo Merli
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:29 PM Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> Show me where the code is that commits to the asf-site branch.
>
> > On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:25 PM, Matteo Merli wrote:
> >
> > I agree with that.
Show me where the code is that commits to the asf-site branch.
> On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:25 PM, Matteo Merli wrote:
>
> I agree with that.
>
> I understand that there are tradeoffs for each approach, though the
> original intention was to allow for doc changes to be committed in the
> same PR as
I agree with that.
I understand that there are tradeoffs for each approach, though the
original intention was to allow for doc changes to be committed in the
same PR as the code change. That doesn't have to be the case always,
especially for larger multi-PR changes, but it makes it easier to do
qu
@sijie the case here might be tricky. They may want to move data across
pulsar clusters operated by different org or teams.
Remember we previously added the ability to send messages to external
pulsar clusters for pulsar function but got reverted. I think this is the
case they are trying to tackle
Dave,
Having a new repo will make it harder for developers to contribute
documentation.
Usually engineers do it like and do not have time to write docs.
If we ask them to create two PRs only to add, for instance, a new
configuration option, then it would be somehow a pain.
I am not saying that
I don't think you need a separate connector.
An identity function should be able to do the job for you.
- Sijie
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 3:34 PM Neng Lu wrote:
> Just did a quick search, it's interesting we don't have a pulsar connector
> to move data among pulsar clusters.
> I guess people usu
I think we should have a PIP for this. Because this impacts all the
developers who are making documentation changes.
- Sijie
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:46 AM Dave Fisher wrote:
> Hi -
>
> There are two efforts happening in the community around website refresh.
>
> (1) Docusaurus upgrades.
> (2)
Just curious to learn is there any progress on moving all the connectors into
separate repos?
Maybe I can help if the decision is finalized.
On 2021/11/17 06:18:52 Lari Hotari wrote:
> Dear Pulsar community members,
>
> PIP-62[1], "PIP 62: Move connectors, adapters and Pulsar Presto to separate
Thanks for the update Marvin,
Great work on the Trino PR! It's been a lot of work to get it to match the
Trino code conventions.
Is there a lot of work remaining?
-Lari
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:40 PM Zhengxin Cai wrote:
> Hi there,
> I think the pr is still open, https://github.com/trinodb/tri
I have pushed in my personal dockerhub the docker images for this RC:
eolivelli/pulsar-all:2.9.0rc4
eolivelli/pulsar:2.9.0rc4
Enrico
Il giorno mer 17 nov 2021 alle ore 14:04 Enrico Olivelli <
eolive...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> This is the fourth release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.9.
Marvin,
Il giorno mer 17 nov 2021 alle ore 14:39 Zhengxin Cai
ha scritto:
> Hi there,
> I think the pr is still open, https://github.com/trinodb/trino/pull/8020,
> will try to push it.
> But even after the pr is merged, I actually still think we might still want
> to keep a copy of the connector
Hi there,
I think the pr is still open, https://github.com/trinodb/trino/pull/8020,
will try to push it.
But even after the pr is merged, I actually still think we might still want
to keep a copy of the connector in Pulsar repo and push changes to Trino
repo periodically, as this will allow much fa
This is the fourth release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.9.0.
It fixes the following issues:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/milestone/30?closed=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 sou
dunkymole commented on issue #84:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-dotpulsar/issues/84#issuecomment-971380922
Sorry, I didnt see this callout. Are you saying bi-directional heartbeating
has been implemented and merged to master?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Se
pgandhap commented on issue #196:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-manager/issues/196#issuecomment-971340283
I am also facing the issue while setting up customised postgresql database .
Please help me if someone already had a solution for the same . Please find
below steps i followed
20 matches
Mail list logo
