Re: [VOTE][PIP-242] Topic name restriction

+1(binding) Thanks, Penghui On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:54 AM Cong Zhao wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Thanks, > Cong > > On 2023/02/18 08:58:26 mattisonc...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi, All > > > > After a fascinating discussion, I would start the vote of PIP-242. > > > > We have chosen to drop out

Re: Modern look for the website

I asked only about the home/index/root (/) page look. Other pages just aren't re-implemented. I don't know the history behind the previous redesign. I met many situations when people didn't want to consider changes for some reason. Therefore, I must be sure that the proposed changes most likely

[DISCUSS] Release 2.9.5

Hello, Pulsar community: I'd like to propose releasing Apache Pulsar 2.9.5. It's been about two months since 2.9.4 was released. There are 54 PRs [0] needed to cherry-pick in branch-2.9. I will cherry-pick these PRs for branch-2.9. Exclude some PRs that merge directly into branch-2.9. There are

[DISCUSS]Add an internal class to `TransactionBufferStats` to record the snapshot status uniformly.

Hi, Community, We plan to add an internal class to `TransactionBufferStats` to record the snapshot status uniformly. As we all know, the current transaction buffer(TB) filters the messages sent using the aborted transaction by storing the aborted ID in TB. Then TB will periodically store these abor

Re: [VOTE][PIP-242] Topic name restriction

+1 (non-binding) Thanks, Cong On 2023/02/18 08:58:26 mattisonc...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi, All > > After a fascinating discussion, I would start the vote of PIP-242. > > We have chosen to drop out the `system topic` related improvement to another > PIP. Therefore, the current version is simple e

Re: Modern look for the website

It looks super cool! I just found some links that don't work. The button "Learn more" and "QuickStart" in the index page will forward to 404 page [image: image.png] And the case study page looks not coordinated well. https://pulsar-site-three.vercel.app/case-studies Thanks for the great job.

Re: Modern look for the website

Hi @visortelle thank you very much for your awsome job! This is a great addition to the Pulsar website! I've checked the design and left my comments at https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/426#issuecomment-1436220520. Also request more reviews from relevant stakeholders. On Mon, Feb 20, 20

Re: [VOTE][PIP-242] Topic name restriction

+1 (binding) Thanks, Yunze On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 6:58 PM Asaf Mesika wrote: > > +1 (non-binding) > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 10:58 AM wrote: > > > Hi, All > > > > After a fascinating discussion, I would start the vote of PIP-242. > > > > We have chosen to drop out the `system topic` related i

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-246: Improved PROTOBUF_NATIVE schema compatibility checks without using avro-protobuf

Thank you for your suggestions and questions. 1. Your first question. It's not just a matter of the required field. There should be many differences between proto3 and proto2. I will later test the current code for compatibility checks in proto3, and also look at compatibility between different pro

Modern look for the website

Hi everyone! I don't think anyone will argue, it’s important to have a fresh-looking website to attract new users. I decided to try to refresh it a little bit. Over the weekend I managed to make a home page. I think that I can finish other pages in 1-2 weeks, depending on my workload.

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-246: Improved PROTOBUF_NATIVE schema compatibility checks without using avro-protobuf

First, thank you for looking into it! There is a thing caught my eye: > The writtenSchema cannot add required fields, … As far as I know, the required fields were removed in Protocol Buffers v3. I see proto3 usage in existing schema registry tests: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/6704f121

[DISCUSS] PIP-246: Improved PROTOBUF_NATIVE schema compatibility checks without using avro-protobuf

Hi all, I made a PIP to discuss: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19565. We can talk about the current design here. Especially for the field type change check rules, please give your valuable advice. Thanks, Sinan

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-242 Topic name restrictions

Is https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19235 somehow related? On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 10:38 AM wrote: > Hi, All > > After discussing with Enrico and Michael offline. > I will split the discussed topic into two PIP. > > 1. Topic name restrictions > a. `-partition-` keyword. > b. enable

Re: [VOTE][PIP-242] Topic name restriction

+1 (non-binding) On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 10:58 AM wrote: > Hi, All > > After a fascinating discussion, I would start the vote of PIP-242. > > We have chosen to drop out the `system topic` related improvement to > another PIP. Therefore, the current version is simple enough and it has a > clear b

Re: Force redirect questions from Slack to GitHub Discussions or StackOverflow?

I would have the bot open a Thread for the message, *suggesting* the user to click to convert this question into a GitHub Discussion question. This way you can have the actual GitHub user asking the question and not a bot one. On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 10:59 PM Kiryl Valkovich wrote: > What about