thanks for the improvements, +1
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 2:20 AM Pengcheng Jiang
wrote:
> Hi Mesika:
>
> Thanks for the suggestions, I updated the pip, and for the rest questions:
>
> 5. yes, all config goes through arguments instead of a file
> 6. it should be a JSON string that can be deseriali
Hi,
I've completed all steps necessary for implementing "PIP-265: PR-based
system for managing and reviewing PIPs" (
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/20207).
PLEASE NOTE, from now on, PIPs are to be submitted *through Pull Request*.
You can read the process detail here:
https://github.com
Hi Mesika:
Thanks for the suggestions, I updated the pip, and for the rest questions:
5. yes, all config goes through arguments instead of a file
6. it should be a JSON string that can be deserialized to a `Map`, updated in pip
7. it should be `pulsar-admin functions localrun` command, updated in
Hi, Enrico
> When we ran the VOTE and we provided the docker images, were they
already broken ?
Actually, they are not broken unless we use the new features of Pulsar 3.0.0.
I think we need something like verification test scripts, to verify
the release candidate. For example, we use the image p
Hi, Asaf
> How do you suggest we prevent it from happening next time?
I have pushed a PR to fix it: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20435
This PR specifies the correct image name for `pulsar` image to build pulsar-all.
Note that, in the release of Pulsar 3.0, we build the docker image by
e
