urfreespace commented on PR #176:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/176#issuecomment-1233838116
> Yes, it's relevant for `website-next`, and can also generate docs for
`website` as `WEBSITE` variable is controllable. I'm not sure whether the
current configuration in the docume
+1 (binding)
- Checked the signatures
- Started a standalone and use pulsar-perf to produce and consume messages
- Ran stateful function
- Ran the connector
Best,
Penghui
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 2:52 PM guo jiwei wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> - Verified checksum and signatures
> - Apache Rat check
+1 (binding)
Built from sources and run some tests.
I wasn't able to run all the tests from pulsar-broker, it takes too
much time and there are flaky tests.
Btw we know the status of the branch, now for newer branches we are in
better shape.
There is no need to hold the release
thank you Haiting
Hi,
I think that we would need to improve the experience for contributors. It's
currently a big challenge to get a PR to the state where tests pass, mainly
because of the large amount of flaky tests and frequent congestions in Pulsar
CI. We don't tell this to the contributors in the PR template
I'm sharing my experience about finding the reason why the build fails. This
has been frustrating.
In the past, it has been a challenge to find the reason why the build fails.
Not that we don't have the information about the failure, but the challenge is
that there's too much information. :)
L
Hi Lari,
Thanks for raising this up! May I know your thoughts on these questions?
# 1
For pure doc PRs (only update .md files), do they run the same tests as
code PRs?
If so, can we set them to run only doc-related tests and skip code tests
(since they're easily failed)?
In this way
Anonymitaet commented on PR #176:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/176#issuecomment-1233989322
@michaeljmarshall
> In my opinion, these next docs are confusing to users since they document
features that are not yet released.
> I don't really think we should be expos
equanz opened a new pull request, #229:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-node/pull/229
### Motivation
Relates to https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-node/pull/215 and
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15508
According to https://github.com/apache/pulsar-clien
Thank you all,
Closing this Vote with 4 binding +1, and 2 non-binding +1.
I will move forward with the release process.
Thanks,
Haiting
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 4:07 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> +1 (binding)
> Built from sources and run some tests.
> I wasn't able to run all the tests from pulsa
+1 (non-binding)
Best,
Max Xu
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 10:06 PM Lari Hotari wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is the official VOTE thread for PIP-205: Reactive Java client for
> Apache Pulsar.
> PIP link: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/17335
> discussion:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/xkfl5
+1 (non-binding)
Best,
Max Xu
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 12:12 PM tison wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Best,
> tison.
>
>
> PengHui Li 于2022年9月1日周四 11:20写道：
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 11:06 AM guo jiwei wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
>
> As Penghui suggested, this field name is changed to `message_id` for
> potential generic usage. :)
>
> That's the thing - it's not really for potential generic use - it's more
for potential *internal* generic usage, which is publicly exposed.
When some outside visitor looks at the API and asks
Hi,
I'm fairly new to this project and I have seen 2 options to comment to a
PIP:
1. In the GitHub issue.
2. In the mailing list.
I was wondering what is the best practice.
I know there is an ongoing initiative at the moment to switch a PIP to
become a file and actually a PR for submitting it. I
Asaf,
good question!
Il giorno gio 1 set 2022 alle ore 15:01 Asaf Mesika
ha scritto:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm fairly new to this project and I have seen 2 options to comment to a
> PIP:
> 1. In the GitHub issue.
> 2. In the mailing list.
>
> I was wondering what is the best practice.
In Apache projects
On 2022/09/01 08:36:11 Yu wrote:
> # 1
> For pure doc PRs (only update .md files), do they run the same tests as
> code PRs?
> If so, can we set them to run only doc-related tests and skip code tests
> (since they're easily failed)?
> In this way, docs can be iterated faster.
The solution is alrea
GitHub user trevordowdle added a comment to the discussion: Unsubscribe
subscription [Rest API] working?
Thank you for your response.
I am using the rest api, here is a sample of the end point:
"DELETE" request to:
http://pulsar-test.com:8080/admin/v2/namespaces/test/ingest/test/subscription/
GitHub user trevordowdle added a comment to the discussion: Unsubscribe
subscription [Rest API] working?
Sorry here is the link to my reply.
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/17379#discussioncomment-3529738
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/17379#discussion
Thanks for your participation! I'm closing this vote now and summarize the
result.
You're welcome to help with reviewing
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17062 and once it gets merged, I will
start to update the corresponding document and add a caveat. Then this PIP
is completed, easy ;-)
Be
+1 (non-binding)
Best,
tison.
tison 于2022年9月2日周五 09:46写道：
> Thanks for your participation! I'm closing this vote now and summarize the
> result.
>
> You're welcome to help with reviewing
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17062 and once it gets merged, I
> will start to update the corresp
Hi,
Thanks to everyone who participated in the vote.
The voting is now closed and it has passed with 4 binding +1, 5 non-binding
+1, and no 0 or -1 votes.
+1 bindings:
Penghui Li
Enrico Olivelli
Lari Hotari
Jiwei Guo
+1 non-bindings:
Nicolò Boschi
Max Xu
Zixuan Liu
Aloys Zhang
tison
Best,
tiso
Hi Pulsar Community,
Recently, we noticed in certain Grafana metrics from the broker that
it appeared a topic had metrics reported by two different brokers at
the same time.
It turns out that the root of the problem is a concept called
"staleness" in prometheus and it is directly related to the f
GitHub user michaeljmarshall added a comment to the discussion: Unsubscribe
subscription [Rest API] working?
Thanks, that helps a ton.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/17379#discussioncomment-3532862
This is an automatically sent email for dev@pulsar.apache.org.
GitHub user michaeljmarshall added a comment to the discussion: Unsubscribe
subscription [Rest API] working?
It looks like that documentation is incorrect. I also get a 404 when I call
that endpoint. However, when I run `bin/pulsar-admin topics unsubscribe -s sub
test`, I noticed that the bro
Hi Pulsar Community,
Here are the meeting notes from today's community meeting. Thanks to
all who participated!
As you'll see, we had a very long discussion about the idea of
replacing bundles. The other two topics were on broker metadata cache
evictions and the pulsar protocol.
Disclaimer: if s
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks,
Xiaoyu Hou
Aloys Zhang 于2022年8月30日周二 19:02写道：
> Hi devs,
>
> This is the VOTE thread for PIP-204 Extensions for BrokerInterceptor.
>
> PIP issue: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/17267
>
> Discussion thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/3zgpbxffo7gzsb5mdh0s
25 matches
Mail list logo
