Re: Status of Pulsar 2.9.0 and starting 2.9.1

Dave, You are correct. Pulsar 2.9.0 has already been released and also some people already started to report issues. The docker images have been deployed and we cannot change them. I am finishing the release process for 2.9.0 with the website updates. I am preparing 2.9.1. I propose to just skip

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Pulsar 2.7.4

Yes, https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13215 has cherry-picked, so we can close it. https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12484 blocked by the test. Penghui On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 2:35 PM Dave Fisher wrote: > I see 2 PRs still open at > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+i

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Pulsar 2.7.4

I see 2 PRs still open at https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.7.4 Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 12, 2021, at 8:22 PM, guo jiwei wrote: > > I have pushed out some fixes in https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13243 > After the tests get passed, I will

Re: Status of Pulsar 2.9.0 and starting 2.9.1

(1) we have published 2.9.0 at https://downloads.apache.org/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.0/ (2) we have published 2.9.0 artifacts through maven central. They don’t let anyone republish versions. There are no do overs on versions. We simply cannot redo 2.9.0 at this moment. All the best, Dave Sent from my

Re: Status of Pulsar 2.9.0 and starting 2.9.1

My take is - if we haven't announced 2.9, I would suggest just redoing the 2.9.0 release. - Sijie On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 6:35 PM Hang Chen wrote: > I am a little confused about why we should skip 2.9.0 and not continue > to release 2.9.0 by including the critical bug fixes. In fact, the > Puls

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Pulsar 2.7.4

I have pushed out some fixes in https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13243 After the tests get passed, I will send out the RC-1 VOTE for 2.7.4 Regards Jiwei Guo (Tboy) On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 3:11 PM PengHui Li wrote: > Just put an update here. We have done the PR cherry-picking > > https://g

Re: Status of Pulsar 2.9.0 and starting 2.9.1

I am a little confused about why we should skip 2.9.0 and not continue to release 2.9.0 by including the critical bug fixes. In fact, the Pulsar 2.9.0 release is not yet completed. For users, they will worry about whether the Pulsar release process is standardized if we skip 2.9.0. They will also

Re: Status of Pulsar 2.9.0 and starting 2.9.1

It can be the case that releases are not announced. For example with Tomcat a version which fails to pass the vote is skipped. Let’s not announce 2.9.0 and go on to 2.9.1. Maybe there’s some website fixes to hide 2.9.0. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 12, 2021, at 5:28 PM, PengHui Li wrote: >

Re: Status of Pulsar 2.9.0 and starting 2.9.1

Another point is we have not announced the 2.9.0 release yet. This will make users feel confused that a new release from the Pulsar community with the serious problem(log4j bug) but after the log4j has fixed the issue and provided the new release. I think we'd better contain the fix in 2.9.0 and

Re: Status of Pulsar 2.9.0 and starting 2.9.1

I am starting 2.9.1 on Monday Enrico Il Dom 12 Dic 2021, 02:19 陳智弘 ha scritto: > Totally agree > > PengHui Li 於 2021年12月12日 週日 08:28 寫道： > > > +1 > > > > Penghui > > > > Matteo Merli 于2021年12月11日 周六15:28写道： > > > > > At this point, if 2.9.0 is non stable, I think we should fast-forward > > > t

[GitHub] [pulsar-helm-chart] MarvinCai commented on a change in pull request #155: Add grafana data persistence support.

MarvinCai commented on a change in pull request #155: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/pull/155#discussion_r767236120 ## File path: charts/pulsar/templates/grafana-deployment.yaml ## @@ -88,4 +91,20 @@ spec: name: "{{ template "pulsar.fullname" .