Do you have a question for the dev mailing list ?
-Ali
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 8:02 PM tiger lee wrote:
> hi
>
--
-Ali
I have uploaded the macosx big sur builds for the python client to pypi.
It's early work . Feel free to test any report on any issues.
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/b8/20/e4e717a358570adbdaf43db4327f19603764d5b137885bb38fad52700768/pulsar_client-2.7.0-cp37-cp37m-macosx_11_0_x86_64.whl
h
If it's a few tests you can isolate it by running if after the group by
excluding it from it.
or simply disable them for now.
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 10:56 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Il Ven 2 Apr 2021, 18:47 Ali Ahmed ha scritto:
>
> > You can rebuild the commit and force pus
You can rebuild the commit and force push this results in the job being
queued on different machines. It ends helping the test pass.
-Ali
On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 9:09 AM Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> Is there a legit regression causing elevated failures?
>
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 10:30 AM Enrico Oliv
I have pushed the new image to "apachepulsar/pulsar-build:ubuntu-16.04"
-Ali
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 5:05 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hello,
> we have merged a change to the Pulsar Builder image in order to allow
> builds to JDK11 (the default is still JDK8)
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/p
Feb 1, 2021 at 12:40 PM Ali Ahmed wrote:
>
> > I recommend we move the connectors away for the pulsar repo to reduce the
> > load on the main ci pipeline. The new repo seems ready.
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar-connectors.
> >
> > -Ali
> >
I recommend we move the connectors away for the pulsar repo to reduce the
load on the main ci pipeline. The new repo seems ready.
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-connectors.
-Ali
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 9:22 AM Sijie Guo wrote:
> Currently, Github Actions are shared across one large `apache`
>
I have no objections.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:56 AM Sijie Guo wrote:
> It seems that there are no objections to this. I will go ahead update the
> description using the pull request #6657.
>
> If you are using Pulsar with Flink, I'd suggest leaving comments at
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/
+1
-Ali
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:13 PM PengHui Li wrote:
> +1
>
>
> Penghui
> On Mar 21, 2020, 1:47 PM +0800, Guangning E , wrote:
> > +1, Looking forward to this release.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Guangning
> >
> > xiaolong ran 于2020年3月20日周五 下午7:22写道：
> >
> > > Hello committers,
> > >
> > > Since
Examining this library
https://docs.rs/native-tls/0.2.4/native_tls/
"This crate uses SChannel on Windows (via the schannel crate), Secure
Transport on OSX (via the security-framework crate), and OpenSSL (via the
openssl crate) on all other platforms. Future futures may also enable other
TLS frame
; On Sat, Jan 4, 2020 at 5:04 PM Ali Ahmed wrote:
>
> > Python 2.7 is officially EOL. We should remove associated build artifacts
> > and update base docker build and distribution images to jdk11 and
> python3.
> > Ideally before the next release.
> >
> > -Ali
> >
>
Python 2.7 is officially EOL. We should remove associated build artifacts
and update base docker build and distribution images to jdk11 and python3.
Ideally before the next release.
-Ali
uests should be done via a
> discussion and vote thread in the ASF mailing list. I didn't see any
> discussion in the mailing list (unless I missed the email). The change
> wasn't done in the Apache way.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:37 PM Ali Ahmed wrote:
If some one is noticing specific issues please let me know I will fix them.
-Ali
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:37 PM Ali Ahmed wrote:
> Github actions went live there have been some reported . am looking into
> them. Here are the issues compiled below.
>
> 1) Some PR's are st
Github actions went live there have been some reported . am looking into
them. Here are the issues compiled below.
1) Some PR's are stuck and don't run github actions.
They are two reasons for these one they are not rebased with giithub
workflow changes.
They are markdown only changes in the pr t
ut adding
> those go unit tests and code style verification as new Github Action?
>
> So we can start moving towards Github Action.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Sijie
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 7:54 PM Ali Ahmed wrote:
>
> > Absolutely we launch 30 jobs in paralle
tps://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/3774>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
> Xiaolong Ran
>
>
>
> > 在 2019年12月3日，上午8:52，Ali Ahmed 写道：
> >
> > Here is PIP document
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13QKvfTj4-AMt3j7JTSE7LcyiXBK0Z0EGzp5HgMwpoj4/edit#
&
nce other people in the community can participate in the
> development if they are interested in helping this.
>
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 8:53 PM Ali Ahmed wrote:
>
> > Sure for unit test the plan is relatively simple. I have isolated a core
> > stab
sts and integration tests. I would guess putting your proposal into
> a PIP so that everyone can review the PIP before voting it.
>
> Thanks,
> Sijie
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 4:39 PM Ali Ahmed wrote:
>
> > Hello everyone ,
> >
> > I am doing experimen
Hello everyone ,
I am doing experiments with github CI and I believe we are ready to vote on
the transition plan.
Briefly the current jenkins env is problematic there is resources
contention, limited parallelism and lack of control to do experiments.
The first version of the github actions ci is
That's what I commented in the ticket.
-Ali
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 12:35 AM Sijie Guo wrote:
> Ali,
>
> If we are moving towards Github Action, shall we disable it?
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 12:20 AM Ali Ahmed wrote:
>
> > Here is the ticke
Here is the ticket in regards to this.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-19286
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 11:25 PM Sijie Guo wrote:
> It seems that we have appveyor build in the Github pull request checks.
> Does anyone know where is this from?
>
> Thanks,
> Sijie
>
your plan
> before giving out a notice like this.
>
> Every decision should be made via email thread, otherwise it never happens.
>
> So please please follow the Apache way.
>
> Sijie
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 3:47 PM Ali Ahmed wrote:
>
> > The github checkin for
The github checkin for the ci process is ready, I have added caching and
disabled runs for documentation changes. It will be merged soon but as non
required tasks for checkins so prs can still be merged without it passing.
The goal is to check for stability for a few days and then file a ticket
wi
l/5574
>
> Github Action now can run on the forked repo. So that we can proceed the
> github action approach now.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 2:51 AM Ali Ahmed wrote:
>
> > Thanks for verifying this yong.
> >
> > -Ali
> >
> >
Thanks for verifying this yong.
-Ali
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 2:04 AM Yong Zhang
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The GitHub Actions works well on the public repo. Also can verify the pull
> request from the fork.
>
> To test the Github Actions, I create a public repo and use an account
> without the GitHub
Here is summary of my investigations into ways to improve stability for the
cicd by moving to an alternative infra then the current apache
jenkins infra.
1) Alternative build script for apache jenkins
This experiment was not successful, jenkins does not seem to pick the
updated job config in all
Yes that's what I am referring to.
-Ali
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:50 PM Sijie Guo wrote:
> > I recommend we ask apache infra to disable them and enable the github
> cicd
> integration.
>
> What is Github CI/CD? You mean Github Actions?
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Thu
I have added some support to apache jenkins jobs as an experiment to skip
documentation changes and retry failed tests.
They are operational but it seems on different runs it picks up different
job configurations.
reasons unclear.
Also the infra seems to be unstable now jobs get stuck and fail mi
It's a multifaceted issue it's becoming a bottleneck to support the growing
list of committers.
The build has issues like python2, python 3, c++ being built serially in
containers separately before being copied to a destination container.
The integration tests need an hour to build an image even b
If we believe coordinating multiple repos is too difficult. We can
consider migrate to bazel as a build system with a hosted cache. That can
give us build speed benefits while maintaining the mono repo structure.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 3:41 AM Ivan Kelly wrote:
> > To enable a faster developme
To enable a faster development cadence I am proposing the following steps
to reorg the current pulsar monorepo and test harness. Here is proposed
list of milestones.
Milestone 1
Move doc artifacts to an independent repo.
We can copy move the site2 folder out of the current repo, we need to
commun
ns
> > And make sure all the changes made to Jenkins are under proper review.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sijie
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:17 AM Ali Ahmed wrote:
> >
> > > Currently there has been a growth in PR for documentation changes, but
> it's
Currently there has been a growth in PR for documentation changes, but it's
being slowed by the test run failures, we can relieve the issue, with some
small changes.
either not run the test if the git can't find a code change in files
git diff --name-only HEAD master | grep -v site2
or change the
I recently merged the postres debezium test but it's execution is not
deterministic, the metadata tables have random data at initiation.
This pr excludes them to get consistent test results.
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5162
I see there are dependencies on websockets, I would a prefer a simple
polling model of the http, also it's enable by default in pulsar.
For the ui the default persistence should be sqlite. Potentially packaged
by default.
-Ali
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 2:47 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Il gio 29
I have finished by poc with Github actions. I propose we disable the
jenkins pr check in jobs with this. The benefits are more stable test runs
and more available resources to instantly start running checkin jobs.
The experimental PR is here.
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/5035
We should b
Sure does apache have any mac os hardware resources that we can use ? Maybe
we should ask around, I currently use custom vagrant images.
Haven't explored other options.
-Ali
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:48 PM Sijie Guo wrote:
> Sorry fo late response. All the github repos are managed under ASF I
That sounds , we do need to update the release process, no one checked for
the release of osx python packages for 2.3.2 and 2.4.0 so I pushed it
manually the release process needs to make sure it's pushed out before the
releases is completed.
-Ali
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jia Zhai wrote:
Seems like we are implementing per message timers.
Not aware of any log pub sub that does that expect rocketmq , not sure how
performant that is.
https://github.com/apache/rocketmq/blob/2b692c912d18c0f9889fd73358581bcccf37bbbe/store/src/main/java/org/apache/rocketmq/store/schedule/ScheduleMessageS
I agree we many want to review pravega's past efforts in this area also.
https://github.com/pravega/pravega/blob/master/documentation/src/docs/transactions.md
https://github.com/pravega/pravega/blob/master/client/src/main/java/io/pravega/client/stream/Transaction.java
-Ali
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at
I am in favor of a separate repo. I have seen rocketmq do it well
https://github.com/apache/rocketmq-client-cpp
https://github.com/apache/rocketmq-client-python
https://github.com/apache/rocketmq-client-go
https://github.com/apache/rocketmq-client-nodejs
-Ali
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 12:38 AM
I support it maybe a tag in the commit Header ie [Documentation] .
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:12 PM Sijie Guo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Currently for every documentation change, we have run 3 precommit jobs,
> java, c++ and integrationt tests. None of them is actually testing the
> documentation chan
The following commit is now in.
1013c750dbfd3773342c71a779796219536b022d
python3 is now available in the 2.3 container image.
python symlink which is used by the pulsar function worker as the default
is still pointing to python2.7
The question is should we be changing that so that the default py
+1
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 1:43 PM Jerry Peng
wrote:
> +1
>
> Environment: MacOS 10.13.6
>
> Went through in full the guide for validating a release candidate
>
> Checked:
> * Signatures
> * Bin distribution:
> - NOTICE, README, LICENSE
> - Start standalone service and producer/consu
45 matches
Mail list logo
