Double-check: do we need a PIP for newly added connectors?
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19821#issuecomment-1488860517
On 2023/03/27 14:14:23 tison wrote:
> Hi Asaf,
>
> > Shouldn’t poeople that has write access to merge must first validate of
> course if PIP is approved before merge?
>
Hi Yu,
Your comment is out of the scope of this thread. I suggest you start a
dedicated thread for the very topic.
N.B. PIP-214 is not about adding connectors. And I merged the Alluxio
connector[1] without a PIP.
Best,
tison.
[1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/3823
Liu Yu 于2023年3月30日周
+1 (binding)
- verified checksum and signature
- ran producer and consumer in examples
Thanks,
Nozomi
2023年3月28日(火) 0:04 Baodi Shi :
> +1(non-binding)
>
> - Checked the signature
> - Verify producer, consumer, and reader examples on README.
>
> Thanks,
> Baodi Shi
>
>
> 在 2023年3月27日 20:23:28
+1 (binding)
- Checked the signature and checksum
- Ran basic end-to-end tests
- Ran pulsar-perf with batch index ACK enabled
Thanks,
Yunze
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:17 PM Nozomi Kurihara wrote:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> - verified checksum and signature
> - ran producer and consumer in examples
>
>
+1 (non-binding)
- verified checksum and signature
- ran producer and consumer examples
Regards,
Takeshi Kimura
-元のメッセージ-
送信元: Zike Yang
Reply-To: "dev@pulsar.apache.org"
日付: 2023年3月27日 月曜日 21:23
宛先: "dev@pulsar.apache.org"
件名: [VOTE] Pulsar Client Go Release 0.10.0 Candidate 1
Hi Bo,
Regarding the 1st question, yes, that's why I open this thread to
discuss. If we change these default values, the behavior of new Python
clients will be like the Java client. In addition, it actually reverts
the breaking change brought in #12232.
Regarding the 2nd question, yes, they are b
Hi, Yunze:
> Regarding the 1st question, yes, that's why I open this thread to
> discuss. If we change these default values, the behavior of new Python
> clients will be like the Java client. In addition, it actually reverts
> the breaking change brought in #12232.
I also kind of forget why we ha
Congrats!
Thanks,
Zixuan
太上玄元道君 于2023年3月30日周四 01:40写道：
> Congrats!!
>
> Thanks,
> Tao Jiuming
>
> > 2023年3月29日 23:51，Devin Bost 写道：
> >
> > Congrats!
> >
> > Devin G. Bost
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 6:38 AM ZhangJian He wrote:
> >
> >> Congratulations!
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> ZhangJian
> Will it register a new schema?
Only when it could pass the schema compatibility strategy. BTW, the
existing schema compatibility checker does not check the order of
fields, while it is very important. IMO, it's a bug of the broker.
Just checked this thread and found I didn't paste this issue:
h
Hi all,
In the last 2 months, I've increased my PIP review time (I do it in
cycles), and reviewed quite a few PIPs.
My conclusion as a result of that:
It's nearly impossible to review PIPs using a mailing list.
We must fix it soon.
*Why?*
1. Let's say you review the PIP and find 10 issues. Once
+1 (non-binding .. ? )
I've already commented a couple of times (here and there) that the process
needs to be consolidated at a single place. This is a good and detailed
approach.
Not sure if there is a historical context behind keeping the discussion in
dev mailing list..
Regards
On Fri, Mar 31,
Hi,
When you read last year's PIPs, many lack background information, hard to
read and understand even if you know pulsar in and out.
First step to fix was to change the PIP is structured:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19832
In my opinion, when someone votes "+1" and it's binding, they b
Hi Asaf,
Thanks for starting this thread!
I have similar thoughts on using a single source for reviewing PIPs. GH PRs
are good for conversation, although multiple conversations are still hard
to follow (which can be natural)
Here is how Rust does it[1] - a self-documented RFC repo + review PRs +
Big +1 for me
Le jeu. 30 mars 2023 à 22:27, Asaf Mesika a écrit :
>
> Hi all,
>
> In the last 2 months, I've increased my PIP review time (I do it in
> cycles), and reviewed quite a few PIPs.
>
> My conclusion as a result of that:
>
> It's nearly impossible to review PIPs using a mailing list.
>
+1 for creating a folder named "pip" in the main pulsar repo
So far, it is good enough to solve the problems we've had.
If it is really worth moving to another repo in the future.
We can move it maybe 3, 5 years later.
Thanks,
Penghui
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 8:29 AM tison wrote:
> Hi Asaf,
>
It looks like we can try to add a new section to
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/wiki/proposals/PIP.md
like "Review the proposal" and it is not only for PMCs, all the reviewers
can follow the checklist
to cast a solemn vote.
And I totally support the motivation of this discussion.
Re
Congrats!
Regards,
Penghui
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 10:21 PM Zixuan Liu wrote:
> Congrats!
>
> Thanks,
> Zixuan
>
> 太上玄元道君 于2023年3月30日周四 01:40写道：
>
> > Congrats!!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tao Jiuming
> >
> > > 2023年3月29日 23:51，Devin Bost 写道：
> > >
> > > Congrats!
> > >
> > > Devin G. Bost
> > >
> >
Hi, Yunze:
+1
> Just checked this thread and found I didn't paste this issue:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-python/issues/108. You can see
> the schema compatibility strategy is FORWARD, then the sorted schema
> from the Java client overwrote the unsorted schema from the Python
> clie
+1 to me. Once the discussion thread of a PIP became too long, it
would be hard to continue the discussion.
Thanks,
Yunze
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 9:13 AM PengHui Li wrote:
>
> +1 for creating a folder named "pip" in the main pulsar repo
> So far, it is good enough to solve the problems we've had
Congrats, Qiang!
Cheers,
Jun
Big +1(non-binding) to me
Thanks,
Hou Xiaoyu
Yunze Xu 于2023年3月31日周五 10:45写道：
> +1 to me. Once the discussion thread of a PIP became too long, it
> would be hard to continue the discussion.
>
> Thanks,
> Yunze
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 9:13 AM PengHui Li wrote:
> >
> > +1 for creating a folde
+1.
Besides using a single source to lift the review efficiency, adding control
over the design documents is also a good practice from the project management
perspective.
Best,
Jun
From: Yunze Xu
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 10:44
To: dev@pulsar.apache.org
Su
+1 (non-binding)
On Fri, 31 Mar, 2023, 08:41 Jun Ma, wrote:
> +1.
>
> Besides using a single source to lift the review efficiency, adding
> control over the design documents is also a good practice from the project
> management perspective.
>
>
> Best,
> Jun
>
>
+1 (binding)
- Checked the signature
- Run standalone
- Run Pulsar perf
- Verified function and state function
- Verified Cassandra connector
Regards,
Penghui
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 8:07 PM 丛搏 wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> system: mac os 12.6, Apple M1
> maven: 3.8.5
> java: OpenJDK 17.0.3
>
> -
Congratulations and welcome to the PMC!
- Michael
On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 8:21 PM PengHui Li wrote:
>
> Congrats!
>
> Regards,
> Penghui
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 10:21 PM Zixuan Liu wrote:
>
> > Congrats!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Zixuan
> >
> > 太上玄元道君 于2023年3月30日周四 01:40写道：
> >
> > > Congrats!!
Congratulations! Qiang
Best,
Max Xu
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 11:23 AM guo jiwei wrote:
> Dear Community,
>
> We are thrilled to announce that Qiang Zhao
> (https://github.com/mattisonchao) has been invited and has accepted the
> role of member of the Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee
26 matches
Mail list logo
