Hi all,
The release note[1] for 2.10.0 is available for review, please help review
and feel free to leave comments.
[1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14398
Best,
Penghui
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 9:58 PM PengHui Li wrote:
> Thanks, Rui
>
> I have merged the PR and cherry-picked it into
Thanks, Rui
I have merged the PR and cherry-picked it into branch-2.10,
I will take care of the tests of branch-2.10 and do more tests.
Regards,
Penghui
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 6:42 PM Rui Fu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13376, I have done some tests
> to veri
Hi all,
For https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13376, I have done some tests to
verify the upgrade of Pulsar Functions from root image to non-root image.
The test runs on my local machine with KinD cluster, with a fresh Pulsar +auth
2.8.2 cluster. The cluster uses Kubernetes Runtime and multi
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:55 PM Michael Marshall wrote:
> Given that our community members who focus on testing are otherwise
> about to prepare for a quick 3 day round of testing, I don't believe
> they would object to a last minute change that gives them more time
> for testing. In your view, wh
Thanks for creating the branch, Penghui.
> Yes, but I think that the code freeze is only meaningful if it’s
> communicated in advance.
Given that our community members who focus on testing are otherwise
about to prepare for a quick 3 day round of testing, I don't believe
they would object to a la
Hi all,
Put an update here, I have created branch-2.10[1]
[1]https://github.com/apache/pulsar/tree/branch-2.10
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 9:23 AM PengHui Li wrote:
> Hi Micheal
>
> > Penghui, is your current plan to create branch-2.10, create the
> release artifacts, and start a vote on them all
Hi Micheal
> Penghui, is your current plan to create branch-2.10, create the
release artifacts, and start a vote on them all within a few days of
each other?
Yes, I will create branch-2.10 today.
For starting the vote, we need to confirm these 2 PRs[1] will not introduce
breaking changes. Very g
Yes, but I think that the code freeze is only meaningful if it’s
communicated in advance.
The fact that it was included in the original PIP but never followed in the
practice means it would be a last minute change.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 2:37 PM Michael Marshall
wrote:
> When we discussed the
When we discussed the code freeze in the community meeting on 2/3, I
was under the impression that it was a new development to our existing
release process. I subsequently learned it was already defined in
PIP 47. Even if we haven't been following this part of PIP 47, what
is the value in waiting u
Michael, as we chatted in last weekly meeting (though not yet
formalized), since we have never really done a feature freeze on the
branch during paste releases, we should start from the next release,
to give a decent preview of what to expect to developers in terms of
dates.
> While some may feel
> I will build the release and start the vote before next Monday(GMT+8)
Penghui, is your current plan to create branch-2.10, create the
release artifacts, and start a vote on them all within a few days of
each other?
> I'm doing my best to follow PIP 47, but when seeing a potential break
> change
Hi all
Just put an update here.
We have 2 PRs[1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13376 and
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13341
need to do the final verification, and you are also very welcome to verify
these 2 changes in your environment, cases.
I will build the release and start t
Hi lari,
> So finally, I understand that "the problem" is that all HTTP server
threads are blocked and this makes the Pulsar Admin API unavailable.
To support the blocking servlet API, Jetty uses a default thread pool that
can grow to up to 200 threads (
https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/b
I created PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14320 to set
numHttpServerThreads=200 .
Please review
On 2022/02/16 12:39:34 Lari Hotari wrote:
> On 2022/02/16 00:58:20 PengHui Li wrote:
> > Which is a sync method. Ultimately this could lead to all the pulsar-web
> > thread
> > blocked. we'd
On 2022/02/16 00:58:20 PengHui Li wrote:
> Which is a sync method. Ultimately this could lead to all the pulsar-web
> thread
> blocked. we'd better not introduce blocking calls if we use AsyncResponse.
>
> > What issue did you see? Please share more context. Thanks for the
> patience.
>
> It happ
> The contributors found there are many places that might also have the same
> problem.
I'm trying to understand "the problem" even though I haven't received replies
from any of the contributors. For example, my question in
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/14013#issuecomment-1033528348 ha
Hi Lari,
> Thanks for replying, Penghui. The problem is that there is no rationale
nor description in that PR, https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13666 .
The only sentence there is "Avoid call sync method in async rest API for
delete subscription".
For https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13
On 2022/02/15 14:13:59 PengHui Li wrote:
> The rationale for these changes, I think it starts from this PR
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13666
> This is the only one example, we have seen the same issue again and again.
> After #13666 get merged,
> The contributors found there are many pl
> Was this about the issue which this PR
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14283 resolved (since it is merged)?
I have the feeling that some past problems haven't been analyzed properly
before deciding on the solution. There seems to be an understanding that
switching from synchronous programm
Thanks for the detailed reply, Penghui.
> And, for the new metadata API, we found an issue that will introduce the
> cache inconsistent issue,
> we are working on a fix, it should be a release blocker, otherwise,
> 2.10 will not able to use.
Was this about the issue which this PR
https://github.
Hi all,
The PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14288 needs more eyes to
unblock the 2.10.0 release.
The PR fixes a breaking change in the branch-2.9, branch-2.8, and master
branches.
Thanks,
Penghui
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:32 PM PengHui Li wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Please help review this P
Hi all
Please help review this PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14283
which should be a blocker for the 2.10.0 release.
Tboy is working on another fix to fix the breaking change introduced in
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13383.
After the PR is available for review, I will update h
Hi Lari,
There are 5 open PRs
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A2.10.0
and #14225 is a release blocker.
For #13376 and #13341, we are preparing the testing, to make sure they can
safely ship to 2.10.0
For #10478, it's a critical fix for the current message rede
> After the features are completed, I will create the new 2.10 branch, and
> only apply
> the critical bug fixes, regression fixes. So that we can have adequate
> testing on branch-2.10
Hi Penghui,
What's the status of 2.10.0 release? What features aren't complete?
In PIP 47
(https://github.co
Yes, I agree, it's a good idea. But it depends on the features freeze time.
cherry-picking fix it ok, but does not work for BIG PRs with protocol
changes,
API changes, such huge changes might introduce new problems during the
cherry-picking.
After the features are completed, I will create the new
PengHui,
There is a recent discussion with Matteo (at the community meetings)
about preparing the release branch a couple of weeks before sending
out the official VOTE.
What about creating the branch-2.10 as soon as possible?
We will commit to that branch only the fixes needed to make 2.10.0 stabl
Hi all,
Sorry for the late reply, due to my vacation these days, we got a delay
here.
Most of the changes of 2.10.0 are getting merged, for now, there are 14
opened PRs(10 approved)
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A2.10.0
I will take care of them and try to
+1.
All make sense to me!
We probably need to move to the feature frozen stage in order to cut a
release at the end of January.
- Sijie
On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 8:46 PM PengHui Li wrote:
> Hi, everyone
>
> I hope you’ve all been doing well. I would like to start an email thread to
> discuss fe
PengHui,
Il giorno lun 27 dic 2021 alle ore 05:47 PengHui Li
ha scritto:
>
> Hi, everyone
>
> I hope you’ve all been doing well. I would like to start an email thread to
> discuss features that we planned for 2.10.0.
> According to the time-based release plan
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wi
29 matches
Mail list logo
