Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-381: Handle large PositionInfo state

On 2024/09/27 19:18:03 Rajan Dhabalia wrote: > Well, again PR#9292 already has an agreement to merge earlier as well and > it was reviewed as well but it just was blocked for no reason. and recently > it was acknowledged that PR#9292 fulfills the purpose of most of the > usecases and we should move

Re: [VOTE] PIP-384: ManagedLedger interface decoupling

+1 (binding) Enrico Il Mer 2 Ott 2024, 03:21 Matteo Merli ha scritto: > +1 > -- > Matteo Merli > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 5:03 PM Rajan Dhabalia > wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > Thanks, > > Rajan > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 9:36 AM Lari Hotari wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'd l

Re: [VOTE] PIP-379: Key_Shared Draining Hashes for Improved Message Ordering

+1 (binding) Enrico Il Mer 2 Ott 2024, 03:21 Matteo Merli ha scritto: > +1 > -- > Matteo Merli > > > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 4:53 PM Lari Hotari wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to start the voting thread for PIP-379: Key_Shared Draining > > Hashes for Improved Message Ordering > > > > Pro

Re: [DISCUSS] Can pass the std tlsconfig to pulsar go client

Thanks for driving this improvement, ZengXiong. I second ZhangJian's comments. We don't want to break the existing API (forward compatibility) unless there are strong technical reasons that the user needs to do minor updates in the client to migrate to a new version. -Lari On 2024/09/29 01:51:5

Re: [VOTE] PIP-384: ManagedLedger interface decoupling

+1 -- Matteo Merli On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 5:03 PM Rajan Dhabalia wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Thanks, > Rajan > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 9:36 AM Lari Hotari wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to start the voting thread for PIP-384: ManagedLedger interface > > decoupling > > > > Proposal PR: https

Re: [VOTE] PIP-379: Key_Shared Draining Hashes for Improved Message Ordering

+1 -- Matteo Merli On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 4:53 PM Lari Hotari wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to start the voting thread for PIP-379: Key_Shared Draining > Hashes for Improved Message Ordering > > Proposal PR: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/23309 > Rendered PIP document: > https://github.com/

Re: [VOTE] PIP-384: ManagedLedger interface decoupling

+1 (binding) Thanks, Rajan On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 9:36 AM Lari Hotari wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to start the voting thread for PIP-384: ManagedLedger interface > decoupling > > Proposal PR: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/23363 > Discussion thread: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/rtnktr

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisit PIP voting max time

Thanks for driving this, Rajan. -Lari On 2024/10/01 23:47:36 Rajan Dhabalia wrote: > Thank you everyone for providing the feedback to improve the PIP process > that will definitely help contributors to move faster without facing > unnecessary delay. I guess we followed this practice for PIP-381

[VOTE] PIP-379: Key_Shared Draining Hashes for Improved Message Ordering

Hi, I'd like to start the voting thread for PIP-379: Key_Shared Draining Hashes for Improved Message Ordering Proposal PR: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/23309 Rendered PIP document: https://github.com/lhotari/pulsar/blob/lh-pip-379/pip/pip-379.md Proof-of-concept implementation: https:/

Re: [DISCUSS] Revisit PIP voting max time

Thank you everyone for providing the feedback to improve the PIP process that will definitely help contributors to move faster without facing unnecessary delay. I guess we followed this practice for PIP-381 ( https://lists.apache.org/thread/qzbhnnqxxbmmr2bhdh10vn3pn7l5yy0w) and it definitely shows

[VOTE] PIP-384: ManagedLedger interface decoupling

Hi, I'd like to start the voting thread for PIP-384: ManagedLedger interface decoupling Proposal PR: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/23363 Discussion thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread/rtnktrj7tp5ppog0235t2mf9sxrdpfr8 Please review the PIP document and vote! Thanks, Lari