> Is there a case where the user uses the messageId returned by the
producer to seek in the consumer? Is this a good behavior?
Yes. I think it should be acceptable. To correct my previous point,
now I think the MessageId returned by send should also be able to be
applied for seek or acknowledge.
+1 to what Michael said.
If an invalid commit gets pushed into one of the public branches, it will
simply need to be reverted. Prettifying the git commit history isn't a proper
reason to do force pushes. There could be special exceptions, such as when
someone accidentally pushes confidential in
Hi Yunze,
Thanks for your proposal. Quoted from your GitHub comments[0]:
> There is also a case when MessageId is returned from Producer#send. In this
> case, the returned MessageId should only used for serialization
Is there a case where the user uses the messageId returned by the
producer to
Hi Lin,
> What if we change aggregatePublisherStatsByProducerName to default to
true, and logs a warning if it's set to false?
Currently "aggregatePublisherStatsByProducerName=true" means that stats is
aggregated by NOT ONLY producer name BUT index when clients don't support
partial producer.
htt
+1 binding
Haiting
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 4:47 PM Jiuming Tao
wrote:
>
> Dear Pulsar Community,
>
> Please review and vote on this PIP.
>
> PIP link: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18560
>
> Discuss thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/z74vcn0yolzzrcc4ftonm9j3nbk4pzxm
>
> Thanks,
+1
Thanks for being the RM.
Haigting
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 7:13 PM Zike Yang wrote:
>
> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Zike Yang
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 6:46 PM Xiangying Meng wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Enrico
> > Thanks for your suggestion.
> > I will only cherry-pick patches that have been on the master bra
In my opinion, the performance issue reported is to critical that it should
be considered a regression. The only option is to either revert the initial
change or fix it as soon as possible.
The backward compatibility issue introduced to this fix, on the other hand,
doesn't impact the behavior of t
I do not think we should have done a force push to rewrite two commit
messages. The problematic messages had commit hashes in their names,
so it was easy enough to figure out what went wrong and how to find
the original commit. If it was really important to fix the messages, I
think we should have
Thanks for pushing this work forward, Tison.
I agree with your proposed changes.
> 1. Adjust the tools[1] to accept X.Y.Z version and produce API docs for X.Y;
I prefer the X.Y as you propose, but it might be confusing since it
doesn't align with our current paradigm where we use version "2.10.X
GitHub user MarvinCai added a comment to the discussion: what is "滚动策略循环"?
Rollover means delete old(consumed) ledgers and make room for new ledgers.
Ledger is append only and will not be writable once closed/fenced.
Ledger can only be deleted as a whole, so all entries on a ledger has to be
co
This is the second release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.11.0.
This release contains 1574 commits by 64 contributors.
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.10.2...v2.11.0-candidate-2
CI for this release candidate
https://github.com/Technoboy-/pulsar/pull/14
*** Please download, te
+1
Thanks,
Zike Yang
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 6:46 PM Xiangying Meng wrote:
>
> Hi, Enrico
> Thanks for your suggestion.
> I will only cherry-pick patches that have been on the master branch for a
> while.
> Thanks,
> Xiangying
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 6:20 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
>
> > I
Hi, Enrico
Thanks for your suggestion.
I will only cherry-pick patches that have been on the master branch for a
while.
Thanks,
Xiangying
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 6:20 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Il Lun 28 Nov 2022, 10:50 PengHui Li ha scritto:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Penghui
> >
> > > On
Il Lun 28 Nov 2022, 10:50 PengHui Li ha scritto:
> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Penghui
>
> > On Nov 28, 2022, at 17:48, Xiangying Meng wrote:
> >
> > Hello, Pulsar community:
> >
> > I'd like to propose releasing Apache Pulsar 2.10.3. It's been about one
> > month since 2.10.2 was released.
> >
> > There a
+1
Thanks,
Penghui
> On Nov 28, 2022, at 17:48, Xiangying Meng wrote:
>
> Hello, Pulsar community:
>
> I'd like to propose releasing Apache Pulsar 2.10.3. It's been about one
> month since 2.10.2 was released.
>
> There are 93 PRs [0] needed to cherry-pick in branch-2.10. I will
> cherry-pick
Hello, Pulsar community:
I'd like to propose releasing Apache Pulsar 2.10.3. It's been about one
month since 2.10.2 was released.
There are 93 PRs [0] needed to cherry-pick in branch-2.10. I will
cherry-pick these PRs for branch-2.10. Exclude some PRs that merge directly
into branch-2.10.
There
Dear Pulsar Community,
Please review and vote on this PIP.
PIP link: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18560
Discuss thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread/z74vcn0yolzzrcc4ftonm9j3nbk4pzxm
Thanks,
Tao Jiuming
Close this discussion.
Zixuan Liu 于2022年11月28日周一 16:18写道：
> > A connection can be used across multiple topics.
>
> Thank you for your explanation. You are right.
>
> Thanks,
> Zixuan
>
> PengHui Li 于2022年11月28日周一 11:28写道：
>
>> > I would like to discuss whether to disconnect the broker and the c
> A connection can be used across multiple topics.
Thank you for your explanation. You are right.
Thanks,
Zixuan
PengHui Li 于2022年11月28日周一 11:28写道：
> > I would like to discuss whether to disconnect the broker and the client
> after authorization failure.
>
> I don't think we should close the c
19 matches
Mail list logo
