Yu,
Il giorno lun 20 dic 2021 alle ore 10:01 Yu ha scritto:
> Hi Enrico,
>
> Thanks for your contribution.
>
> 1) A soft reminder that is not on the current release process [a]:
> Since 2.9.0 was delayed, some doc changes on the master are applied to
> 2.10.0 only, so generating the 2.9.0 doc se
Hi Enrico,
Thanks for your contribution.
1) A soft reminder that is not on the current release process [a]:
Since 2.9.0 was delayed, some doc changes on the master are applied to
2.10.0 only, so generating the 2.9.0 doc set should be based on the "2.9.0
release time point" rather than the current
Il giorno ven 17 dic 2021 alle ore 09:45 Yu ha scritto:
> Hi Enrico,
>
> Thanks for your great effort on the 2.9.0 release.
>
> Circling back to see if there is any progress of the 2.9.0 website updates
> [1].
>
> Currently, the 2.9.0 doc is not available on the website and the 2.9.0 doc
> set ha
Hi Enrico,
Thanks for your great effort on the 2.9.0 release.
Circling back to see if there is any progress of the 2.9.0 website updates
[1].
Currently, the 2.9.0 doc is not available on the website and the 2.9.0 doc
set has not been generated yet, any updates? Thanks
[1] https://github.com/apa
Olivelli
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 5:29:53 AM
> To: Dev
> Subject: Re: Status of Pulsar 2.9.0 and starting 2.9.1
>
> Hang,
> sorry, I wanted to say that I am double checking if people forgot to add
> "cherry-picked"
>
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno mer
s, but if some users
trust the Apache releases to be stable, that trust can be damaged if we're not
careful.
Devin Bost
(Sent from mobile)
From: Enrico Olivelli
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 5:29:53 AM
To: Dev
Subject: Re: Status of Pulsar 2.9.0 and st
Hang,
sorry, I wanted to say that I am double checking if people forgot to add
"cherry-picked"
Enrico
Il giorno mer 15 dic 2021 alle ore 13:20 Enrico Olivelli <
eolive...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>
> Il giorno mer 15 dic 2021 alle ore 12:52 Hang Chen
> ha scritto:
>
>> Hi Enrico,
>> Thanks
Il giorno mer 15 dic 2021 alle ore 12:52 Hang Chen ha
scritto:
> Hi Enrico,
> Thanks for your great work! I found 150+ PR labeled as
> `release/2.9.1`, but doesn't contain in v2.9.1-candidate-1 tag. Does
> those PRs release in next version?
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3A
Hi Enrico,
Thanks for your great work! I found 150+ PR labeled as
`release/2.9.1`, but doesn't contain in v2.9.1-candidate-1 tag. Does
those PRs release in next version?
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.1+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.9+is%3Aclosed
T
I had prepared the rc1 for 2.9.1
but today I added https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13291
I will create a new RC and send a VOTE, possibly today
The first RC will be rc2, in order to not mess up the git repository and
the dist area
Enrico
Il giorno lun 13 dic 2021 alle ore 19:22 Sijie Guo
Thank you for sharing that!
I think we should separate discussing a process from finishing a release.
In other words, we shouldn't block on a process in order to finish a
release.
We should use the old process to finish a release while discussing a
process to improve the release notes process.
-
> On Dec 13, 2021, at 9:57 AM, Sijie Guo wrote:
>
> I am fine with doing 2.9.1.
>
> I am trying to understand what happened between released 2.9.0 and
> announcing it.
>
> It usually means there is a gap in the release process. We need to solve
> the process. If it is RM's responsibility for
I am fine with doing 2.9.1.
I am trying to understand what happened between released 2.9.0 and
announcing it.
It usually means there is a gap in the release process. We need to solve
the process. If it is RM's responsibility for announcing the release, it
should happen as soon as the release was
I'm 100% with Dave. 2.9.0 is released (it's up on Maven), if it's not
"announced", that's just a "publicity" effort because the 2.9.0 release is
out there.
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:34 PM Dave Fisher wrote:
> (1) we have published 2.9.0 at
> https://downloads.apache.org/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.0/
Interesting ... I haven't received any announcement of 2.9.0.
Can I know what caused the delay?
- Sijie
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 11:32 PM Enrico Olivelli
wrote:
> Dave,
> You are correct.
> Pulsar 2.9.0 has already been released and also some people already started
> to report issues.
> The doc
Dave,
You are correct.
Pulsar 2.9.0 has already been released and also some people already started
to report issues.
The docker images have been deployed and we cannot change them.
I am finishing the release process for 2.9.0 with the website updates.
I am preparing 2.9.1.
I propose to just skip
(1) we have published 2.9.0 at https://downloads.apache.org/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.0/
(2) we have published 2.9.0 artifacts through maven central. They don’t let
anyone republish versions.
There are no do overs on versions. We simply cannot redo 2.9.0 at this moment.
All the best,
Dave
Sent from my
My take is - if we haven't announced 2.9, I would suggest just redoing the
2.9.0 release.
- Sijie
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 6:35 PM Hang Chen wrote:
> I am a little confused about why we should skip 2.9.0 and not continue
> to release 2.9.0 by including the critical bug fixes. In fact, the
> Puls
I am a little confused about why we should skip 2.9.0 and not continue
to release 2.9.0 by including the critical bug fixes. In fact, the
Pulsar 2.9.0 release is not yet completed.
For users, they will worry about whether the Pulsar release process is
standardized if we skip 2.9.0. They will also
It can be the case that releases are not announced. For example with Tomcat a
version which fails to pass the vote is skipped.
Let’s not announce 2.9.0 and go on to 2.9.1.
Maybe there’s some website fixes to hide 2.9.0.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 12, 2021, at 5:28 PM, PengHui Li wrote:
>
Another point is we have not announced the 2.9.0 release yet.
This will make users feel confused that a new release from the Pulsar
community with the
serious problem(log4j bug) but after the log4j has fixed the issue and
provided the new release.
I think we'd better contain the fix in 2.9.0 and
I am starting 2.9.1 on Monday
Enrico
Il Dom 12 Dic 2021, 02:19 陳智弘 ha scritto:
> Totally agree
>
> PengHui Li 於 2021年12月12日 週日 08:28 寫道：
>
> > +1
> >
> > Penghui
> >
> > Matteo Merli 于2021年12月11日 周六15:28写道：
> >
> > > At this point, if 2.9.0 is non stable, I think we should fast-forward
> > > t
Totally agree
PengHui Li 於 2021年12月12日 週日 08:28 寫道：
> +1
>
> Penghui
>
> Matteo Merli 于2021年12月11日 周六15:28写道：
>
> > At this point, if 2.9.0 is non stable, I think we should fast-forward
> > to 2.9.1 which will include security fix. Though, we should start
> > 2.9.1 right now.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
+1
Penghui
Matteo Merli 于2021年12月11日 周六15:28写道：
> At this point, if 2.9.0 is non stable, I think we should fast-forward
> to 2.9.1 which will include security fix. Though, we should start
> 2.9.1 right now.
>
>
> --
> Matteo Merli
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 11:23 PM Michael Marshall
> wrote
At this point, if 2.9.0 is non stable, I think we should fast-forward
to 2.9.1 which will include security fix. Though, we should start
2.9.1 right now.
--
Matteo Merli
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 11:23 PM Michael Marshall wrote:
>
> +1 - thanks Enrico.
>
> - Michael
>
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 1:
+1 - thanks Enrico.
- Michael
On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 1:11 AM Lari Hotari wrote:
>
> +1
>
> la 11. jouluk. 2021 klo 9.07 Enrico Olivelli
> kirjoitti:
>
> > Hello folks,
> > Yesterday we committed the release notes for 2.9.0.
> > I just have to publish a couple of other artifacts and update the
+1
la 11. jouluk. 2021 klo 9.07 Enrico Olivelli
kirjoitti:
> Hello folks,
> Yesterday we committed the release notes for 2.9.0.
> I just have to publish a couple of other artifacts and update the website
> before announcing 2.9.0.
> My plan is to complete the procedure next week.
>
> In the mean
Hello folks,
Yesterday we committed the release notes for 2.9.0.
I just have to publish a couple of other artifacts and update the website
before announcing 2.9.0.
My plan is to complete the procedure next week.
In the meantime, early next week, I believe it is time to prepare the first
RC of 2.9.
28 matches
Mail list logo
