+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
contains the
fix).
BR, Lari
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 2:23 PM Lari Hotari wrote:
>
> As many of you might have already heard of this, there's a severe RCE
> 0-day exploit found in Log4J (2.0 <= Apache log4j <= 2.14.1).
> Blog post: https://www.lunasec.io/docs/blog/log
Congrats Marvin, well deserved!
-Lari
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:46 AM linlin wrote:
> The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Marvin Cai
> https://github.com/MarvinCai to become a committer and we are pleased to
> announce that he has accepted.
>
> Marvin has joined th
There's a new CVE, CVE-2021-45046 in Log4j < 2.16.0
details:
https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/apache-log4j-cves
Summary:
Pulsar isn't impacted with CVE-2021-44228 when the default log4j
configuration is used.
However, remember that Pulsar is impacted by the actual Log4Shell CVE and
Pulsa
-1,
I verified the packages, but the signatures are invalid.
It looks like the
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/pulsar-2.8.2-candidate-1/apache-pulsar-2.8.2-bin.tar.gz.asc
file is from December 1st.
I checked this in the SVN staging repository history (
https://dist.apache.org/repos
t still want
> to keep a copy of the connector in Pulsar repo and push changes to Trino
> repo periodically, as this will allow much faster bug fix and feature
> iteration.
> Best,
> Marvin,
>
> Lari Hotari 于2021年11月17日周三 下午2:19写道：
>
> > Dear Pulsar community members
nstance/JavaInstanceRunnable.java#L179-L182
Pulsar name validation pattern:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/7bf14b5ac049d71c7ff74bbe758cb41aaffeb0af/pulsar-common/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/common/naming/NamedEntity.java#L31-L34
Regards,
Lari Hotari
Dear Pulsar community members,
PIP-62[1], "PIP 62: Move connectors, adapters and Pulsar Presto to separate
repositories" was created in April 2020. The repositories for
pulsar-connectors, pulsar-adapters and pulsar-sql were created about a year
ago [2].
I'd like to propose that we continue with t
Good work Nicolò! It's great to have OWASP dependency check handled for all
active branches.
-Lari
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 5:05 PM Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I created a couple of pull requests in order to run a periodic check on
> Pulsar active branches. In this way we can proa
ie
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:34 PM Enrico Olivelli
> wrote:
>
> > Lari,
> >
> > Il giorno mer 22 dic 2021 alle ore 08:31 Lari Hotari >
> > ha scritto:
> >
> > > Dear Pulsar community members,
> > >
> > > PIP-62[1], "PIP 62:
Hi all,
There's an upcoming change in the Apache Pulsar Helm chart to finally
switch to Pulsar 2.8.x, more specifically to Apache Pulsar version 2.8.2 .
The latest Apache Pulsar Helm Chart release uses the Apache Pulsar 2.7.4
image.
The pull request to switch to Apache Pulsar image version 2.8.2
Hi all,
Currently k8s 1.14 version is used in CI to verify the Helm chart changes.
k8s 1.14 became end-of-life 2019-12-11 , over 2 years ago [1].
The oldest maintained version for Kubernetes is 1.20 and it will become
end-of-life on 2022-02-28, in less than 2 months from now [2].
There's a PR to
Reminder, there's a PR to lift the minimum requirement for Apache Pulsar
Helm Charts to 1.18 so that we don't fall too far behind.
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/pull/192
Please review
BR, Lari
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 11:40 AM Lari Hotari wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
+1
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 11:23 AM Ran Gao wrote:
> Hello, Pulsar community:
>
> I'd like to propose that we release Apache Pulsar 2.9.2.
>
> Currently, compared to 2.9.1, branch-2.9 already merged 171 commits(refer
> to [0]), they contain the log4j security patch and many important fixes.
>
> I
't
support TLS and the impacted NettyServerCnxnFactory must be used for TLS.
How do we handle the decision? Can we proceed in merging
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/pull/190 regardless of the
known issue?
BR,
Lari
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 4:39 PM Lari Hotari wrote:
> Hi a
? I see most of the changes are done
> in the CI part.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 1:41 AM Lari Hotari wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Currently k8s 1.14 version is used in CI to verify the Helm chart
> changes.
> >
> > k8s 1.14 became
atest released versions.
BR, Lari
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 11:40 AM Lari Hotari wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Currently k8s 1.14 version is used in CI to verify the Helm chart changes.
>
> k8s 1.14 became end-of-life 2019-12-11 , over 2 years ago [1].
> The oldest maintained version for Ku
utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> > >
> > 不含病毒。www.avg.com
> > <
> >
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> >
art/pull/190 asap so that we can
finally move to Pulsar 2.8.x in the Pulsar Helm Chart.
BR,
Lari
On 2022/01/12 12:52:47 Lari Hotari wrote:
> Hi Sijie,
>
> Thanks for the suggestions.
>
> > That means:
> >
> > > 1. We should have a separate `version` from `appVers
rk Lari !
>
> what about upgrading to 2.9.1 and not to 2.8.2 ?
> We are VOTing for 2.9.2 and 2.10 will be shipped soon
>
> isn't 2.8.2 quite old at this point ?
>
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno mer 26 gen 2022 alle ore 14:52 Lari Hotari
> ha scritto:
> >
Dear Pulsar community members,
Here's a report of the flaky tests in Pulsar CI during the observation
period of 2022-01-27 to 2022-02-03 .
The full report is available as a Google Sheet,
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/165FHpHjs5fHccSsmQM4beeg6brn-zfUjcrXf6xAu4yQ
There are a lot more flaky
I added the links to GitHub issues to the spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/165FHpHjs5fHccSsmQM4beeg6brn-zfUjcrXf6xAu4yQ/edit#gid=456314619
Let's focus fixing the top 10 most flaky tests asap. Please comment on the
issue that you are working on it so that we don't unnecessarily do
+1
Thank you, Michael, for volunteering to be the release manager for 2.8.3.
-Lari
On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 8:16 PM Michael Marshall
wrote:
> Hello Pulsar Community,
>
> We have had several important fixes since we released 2.8.2 a month
> ago. I propose we start the process to release 2.8.3, and
+1
-Lari
to 10. helmik. 2022 klo 4.44 r...@apache.org
kirjoitti:
> Hello Everyone:
>
>
> I hope you’ve all been doing well. In the past two months, we have
>
> fixed a number of bugs related to connection leaks and added
>
> some new features. For more information refer to:
>
>
> https://github
Hello Pulsar Community,
We have had several important fixes since we released 2.7.4 on Dec 27, 2021.
I propose we start the process to release 2.7.5, and I volunteer to be the
release manager.
Here [0] you can find the list of 11 commits to branch-2.7 since the 2.7.4
release.
There are 3 closed P
Congratulations Aloys Zhang!
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 4:46 AM linlin wrote:
> The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Aloys
> Zhang
>
> (https://github.com/aloyszhang) to become a committer and we are pleased
> to
>
> announce that he has accepted.
>
> Aloys Zhang joined
This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.7.5.
It contains the following commits after the previous release:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.7.4...v2.7.5-candidate-1
*** Please download, test and vote on this release. This vote will stay open
for at least 72 hou
Please help to verify this release. Thank you
-Lari
On 2022/02/11 13:47:50 Lari Hotari wrote:
> This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.7.5.
>
> It contains the following commits after the previous release:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.
> 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
When is 2.9.2 Candidate 3 planned?
What changes will it include? All current changes in branch-2.9 ?
The version has already been set to 2.9.3-SNAPSHOT in branch-2.9 with
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14089 . If we do 2.9.2 with all current
changes from branch-2.9, the commit for PR 14089
> It is not clear to me who is the consumer of this BOM.
I was thinking that using a Maven BOM file [1] could be useful when
implementing "PIP 62: Move connectors, adapters and Pulsar Presto to
separate repositories" [2].
Pulsar Adapters is the only part of PIP-62 that has been moved. The
duplicat
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.
+1
> >
> > Checks:
> >
> > - Checksum and signatures
> >
> > - Compile from source w JDK11
> >
> > - Validate Pub/Sub and Java Functions [1]
> >
> > - Validate Connectors [1]
> >
> > - Validate Stateful Functions [1]
> >
14240 does not run
> any tests.
> All the tests were completed in 1 min, please check.
>
> Thanks,
> Penghui
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 7:23 PM Lari Hotari wrote:
>
> > The tests passed for the a PR based on revision a27e0853bda in branch-2.7
>
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
+1
On 2022/02/11 13:47:50 Lari Hotari wrote:
> This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.7.5.
>
> It contains the following commits after the previous release:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.7.4...v2.7.5-candidate-1
>
> *** Please download
> The PR you shared https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14240 does not run
> any tests.
> All the tests were completed in 1 min, please check.
>
> Thanks,
> Penghui
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 7:23 PM Lari Hotari wrote:
>
> > The tests passed for
I'll vote again with -1.
The "CI - Integration - Cli / cli" build job passes cleanly for 2.7.4 . This
means that it's very likely that there's a regression in 2.7.5 . I'll
investigate the issue.
-Lari
On 2022/02/16 10:21:23 Lari Hotari wrote:
> The branch-2.7
n be achieved if
waiting is done asynchronously."
You can achieve better resource efficiency and better scalability with
asynchronous servlets.
Do we have such problems in Apache Pulsar with the Servlet API?
-Lari
On 2022/02/15 14:51:59 Lari Hotari wrote:
> On 2022/02/15 14:13:59 PengH
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
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
&g
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/14329
Motivation
Since Pulsar Admin API uses the blocking servlet API, all Jetty threads
might be occupied and this causes unavailability of the Pulsar Admin
API. The default value for the maximum number of threads for Jetty is
too low in Pulsar. That
The chart index is now published,
https://pulsar.apache.org/charts/index.yaml .
However, the history isn't there. I'll fix that with a manual commit.
-Lari
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 7:31 AM Guangning E wrote:
> yes, this pr for fixed it =>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/pull/231
>
://pulsar.apache.org/charts/index.yaml?dummy .
GitHub pages caching is explained in this SO answer:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24851824/how-long-does-it-take-for-github-page-to-show-changes-after-changing-index-html
.
-Lari
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 7:52 AM Lari Hotari wrote:
> The chart in
Change to roll back Apache Pulsar Helm chart publishing to new site:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/pull/234
-Lari
On 2022/02/17 19:44:53 Sijie Guo wrote:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/3
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14356
>
> Changes to roll back the websit
-1
There was a thread leak in MLTransactionMetadataStore which also impacts
production code.
It is fixed by https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14524 which is now merged
to master branch. The thread leak resulted in a memory leak in tests and that's
how I noticed it.
The thread leak was also
I think this is a good idea. In CI, the tests will be retried multiple
times at multiple levels: at the test class / test method level and at the
build level.
I'd like to get rid of test retries completely, since that is the reason
why the flakiness problem gets worse over time. This was also cove
Here's a PR to disable tests retries for new and modified tests:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14607
Please review and provide feedback.
-Lari
On 2022/03/08 11:24:13 Lari Hotari wrote:
> I think this is a good idea. In CI, the tests will be retried multiple
> times at mult
; I see. Now we retry all tests by default. What's the reason?
> >>
> >> Test retries are enabled precisely because some tests are flaky.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Michael
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 7
> > Good job!
> >
> > I see. Now we retry all tests by default. What's the reason?
> >
> > The process I understand is:
> > We don't need to retry the unit test. Once the test fails, let the job fail.
> > The difference is that new or modified te
Congrats Andrey!
-Lari
On 2022/03/07 19:25:44 Dave Fisher wrote:
> The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Andrey
> Yegorov
> https://github.com/dlg99 to become a committer and we are pleased to
> announce that he has accepted.
>
> Andrey has made great contributions to
I support the switch to AssertJ.
Some automated tooling might be useful for doing the bulk of the migration.
AssertJ provides some scripts for the migration:
https://joel-costigliola.github.io/assertj/assertj-core-converting-testng-assertions-to-assertj.html
There's also more sophisticated tools
n merge
> them into one workflow.
>
> - Sijie
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 2:48 AM Lari Hotari wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the feedback Sijie.
> >
> > > We are using a lazy consensus approach. Typically if there is no
> > objection,
> > >
I have submitted the PR for refactoring the apache/pulsar GitHub Actions based
CI. Please review https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14819 .
BR,
-Lari
On 2022/03/22 13:38:36 Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Lari,
>
> Il Mar 22 Mar 2022, 14:32 Lari Hotari ha scritto:
>
> > I ha
Hi,
Thank you for the problem report. Have you already filed an issue in
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues ? If not, I think it will be helpful
for tracking the issue.
When there are such issues where the broker seems to freeze, it is helpful to
get a threaddump from the frozen broker. T
I have created a separate PR to make pulsarbot support the new GitHub Actions
feature of rerunning failed jobs (instead of all jobs in a workflow). Please
review https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/27 too.
-Lari
On 2022/03/23 10:46:10 Lari Hotari wrote:
> I have submitted the
The problem with the "Pulsar PR Naming Convention" is that it can conflict with
general Git message conventions.
The PR title automatically becomes the Git commit's subject line. That's how
the PR title related to the Git commit's subject line (title).
In Git, the convention is to have a subje
oring workflow data as artifacts -
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/storing-workflow-data-as-artifacts
On 2022/03/23 10:46:10 Lari Hotari wrote:
> I have submitted the PR for refactoring the apache/pulsar GitHub Actions
> based CI. Please review https://github.com/apache/pulsar
The PR has sufficient reviews, and I'll proceed with merging it today or
tomorrow.
Please provide feedback now if you want to do that before the PR is merged.
Thanks!
-Lari
On 2022/03/28 20:05:14 Lari Hotari wrote:
> The PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14819 is now ready fo
hat might pop up.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 7:55 AM Lari Hotari wrote:
> >
> > The PR has sufficient reviews, and I'll proceed with merging it today or
> > tomorrow.
> > Please provide feedback now if you want to do that befor
:45)
at io.prestosql.server.PrestoServer.run(PrestoServer.java:78)
at io.prestosql.$gen.Presto_33220220330_100314_1.run(Unknown Source)
at io.prestosql.server.PrestoServer.main(PrestoServer.java:72)
I'll apply a workaround to unblock CI.
-Lari
On 2022/03/30 06:52:38 Lari Hotari wrote:
> Th
/reopen it to pick up changes for the new Pulsar
CI workflow. That is necessary so that PRs can be merged.
-Lari
On 2022/03/30 14:08:17 Lari Hotari wrote:
>
> Merging the PR is blocked by https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/14951 .
>
> Pulsar SQL doesn't work with Java
QL.
I would assume that it's fine for doing this in the master branch.
Are there any ideas how to resolve
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/14951 in some other way?
BR, Lari
On 2021/12/23 08:42:57 Lari Hotari wrote:
> > I believe we want to keep SQL until the code chang
Hi all,
The Pulsar IO integration tests were constantly failing and blocking PR jobs
from being merged.
This issue has been fixed by reverting the Rocksdb upgrade. It turns out that
Rocksdb broke binary compatibility in 6.17.3 and code compiled for <6.17.3
isn't fully compatible at runtime wit
Hi all,
There's a small limitation in re-running failed jobs (builds that fail because
of flaky tests) in the refactored Pulsar CI workflow which combines multiple
jobs into a single workflow.
The limitation is that you need to wait for all jobs to complete before failed
jobs can be re-run.
Ye
ck up
changes from master. Don't close & reopen PRs as I had advised earlier since it
causes problems. The wrong builds will be run and that adds up in the build
queue.
-Lari
On 2022/04/01 08:38:54 Lari Hotari wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There's a small limitation in re-runnin
> IMO, the more serious problem about `disableAutoread` is
> Producer/Consumer isolation issue,
> since they shares the connection. For example, if topic-A is
rate-limited,
> topic-B in the same client is also affected.
Exactly. The rate-limiting won't even work properly since other rate
limiters
ve the issues together.
I'll try to find a place to document the details that are mentioned in this
email thread.
-Lari
On 2022/04/01 14:34:02 Lari Hotari wrote:
> I now realized that my advice to close & reopen PRs to pick up master branch
> changes is problematic. This will cause
oesn't work when
it cannot find the failed or cancelled workflow runs.
-Lari
On 2022/04/08 07:01:33 Lari Hotari wrote:
> With the new GitHub Actions CI workflow there are cases where you see a red
> mark as a failure, but there's no need to rerun failed jobs since the red
> fa
Hi Heesung,
I support this proposal, but I would have expected you to first reply on the
email thread started by Nicolo in February
https://lists.apache.org/thread/c0k8p9vy5wyp9l70mt980gdy10smx6qb .
Nicolo Boschi has been working on Java 17 compatibility for months and also
brought this up to
be able to rerun the failed jobs.
-Lari
On 2022/04/01 14:34:02 Lari Hotari wrote:
> I now realized that my advice to close & reopen PRs to pick up master branch
> changes is problematic. This will cause issues with "/pulsarbot
> rerun-failure-checks". The script current
k now. I'm sorry for the
inconvenience that it caused when it wasn't working for all cases. Please let
me know if there are any remaining issues.
-Lari
On 2022/04/21 09:45:37 Lari Hotari wrote:
> I have made a fix to the problem described below.
> Please review https://github.co
-1. It's too early to start a vote. Let's first have discussions.
-Lari
ma 2. toukok. 2022 klo 9.50 Andras Beni
kirjoitti:
> Hi Pulsar Community,
>
> I would like to start a VOTE on "Bucketing topic metadata to allow more
> topics per namespace" (PIP-157).
>
> The proposal can be read at https:
Congrats Qiang!
-Lari
ke 4. toukok. 2022 klo 9.28 Enrico Olivelli kirjoitti:
> The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache Pulsar
> has invited Qiang Zhao to become a committer and we are pleased
> to announce that he has accepted.
>
> Qiang Zhao (with GH id mattisonchao) contributed lot
PIP-156 PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15264 has been merged to
master branch.
Please notice that Java 17 is now required for building Pulsar master branch.
btw. https://sdkman.io/ is handy for managing multiple JDK versions in local
development environments.
-Lari
On 2022/04/20 16
+1
-Lari
On 2022/05/16 07:09:19 Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> This is the VOTE thread for PIP-161
>
> This is the GH issue: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15528
> This is the PR: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15488
>
> Motivation
>
> In PIP-68 we introduced two access modes for the
Hi all,
I started writing this email as feedback to "PIP-157: Bucketing topic
metadata to allow more topics per namespace" [3].
This email expanded to cover some analysis of "PIP-45: Pluggable metadata
interface" [4] design. (A good introduction to PIP-45 is the StreamNative
blog post "Moving Towa
t affected at all by this
> proposal, as the naming happens on top of it).
>
> Some parts can be clarified (as it is always the case), though I don't
> think it's a good idea to stop a vote at this point.
>
>
> Matteo
>
> --
> Matteo Merli
>
>
Dear Pulsar community members,
Here's a report of the flaky tests in Pulsar CI during the observation
period of 2022-05-26 to 2022-06-02 .
The full report is available as a Google Sheet,
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/165FHpHjs5fHccSsmQM4beeg6brn-zfUjcrXf6xAu4yQ/edit?usp=sharing
The repor
This is a very useful proposal. LGTM
-Lari
On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 3:48 AM Matteo Merli wrote:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15954
>
> WIP can be seen at: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/15955
>
> ---
>
>
> ## Motivation
>
> The current implementation of the read cache
Thanks for picking up this task. The decision to move Pulsar SQL out of
apache/pulsar repository has been made over 2 years ago in April 2020 with
PIP-62,
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-62%3A-Move-connectors%2C-adapters-and-Pulsar-Presto-to-separate-repositories
. It's not only abou
+1, with some conditions about the details of PIP 198 that are listed below:
Would it be possible to improve the proposal in a way that the valid prefixes
for type and component are in a file in the repository and the possible checker
would use this file as the source of truth? Tison already poi
Thank you Penghui, really useful way to coordinate the fixing of flaky
tests!
-Lari
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 11:35 AM PengHui Li wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For better tracking flaky test fix, I have tried to create a Github
> Project under the Pulsar repo https://github.com/apache/pulsar/projects/11
>
Bumping up this thread.
-Lari
pe 20. toukok. 2022 klo 1.57 Lari Hotari kirjoitti:
> Hi all,
>
> I started writing this email as feedback to "PIP-157: Bucketing topic
> metadata to allow more topics per namespace" [3].
> This email expanded to cover some analysis of &q
+1 (binding)
Good proposal. My only comment is about the naming. Instead of calling it a
"preprocessing function" or "extra function", I'd propose calling it "decorator
function".
-Lari
On 2022/07/28 10:39:35 Christophe Bornet wrote:
> Hi, Pulsar community,
>
> I'd like to start a vote on PIP
Hi all,
I'd like to get some more eyes on this long outstanding performance issue
with large fan-outs (a large number of consumers for a single topic). The
broker cache does not work as expected due to invalid changes introduced in
version 2.8.2 by PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12045.
naged-ledger/src/main/java/org/apache/bookkeeper/mledger/impl/ManagedCursorContainer.java#L109
> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12045
> [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14985
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 5:47 PM Lari Hotari wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
&
Hi,
GitHub Actions builds have been piling up in the build queue in the last few
days.
I posted on bui...@apache.org
https://lists.apache.org/thread/6lbqr0f6mqt9s8ggollp5kj2nv7rlo9s and created
INFRA ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-23633 about this issue.
There's also a threa
or project direction are disallowed; off-list discourse
and transactions must be brought on-list."
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 6:15 AM Lari Hotari wrote:
> Bumping up this thread.
>
> -Lari
>
> pe 20. toukok. 2022 klo 1.57 Lari Hotari kirjoitti:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
&
Good reiteration of the problem and good points, Asaf.
I'd like to add a new aspect to the proposal: there might be other
solutions that would be useful in the case of large amount of topics in a
Pulsar cluster.
Rate limiting on the /metrics endpoint doesn't sound like the correct
approach.
When
Hi all,
I have drafted PIP-204: Reactive Java client for Apache Pulsar.
PIP link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/17335
Here's a copy of the contents of the GH issue for your references:
Motivation
There's a need to "go reactive from end-to-end" when building modern
reactive applicatio
I updated it to be PIP-205 since there was a previous reference of PIP-204. :)
-Lari
On 2022/08/29 12:55:43 Lari Hotari wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have drafted PIP-204: Reactive Java client for Apache Pulsar.
>
> PIP link:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/17335
>
&
master branch is broken once again. Here's the fix:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17339
Please review and merge
-Lari
On 2022/08/26 12:00:20 Lari Hotari wrote:
> Hi,
>
> GitHub Actions builds have been piling up in the build queue in the last few
> days.
Is there a specific reason to put the PIPs in the apache/pulsar repository?
I think that it will add unnecessary cruft to our core source code repository.
Could we instead create a separate repository to hold the PIP files? The
example of Rust lang has a separate repository too,
https://github.
. Hopefully we get the CI slowness issue
solved asap.
BR,
Lari
On 2022/08/26 12:00:20 Lari Hotari wrote:
> Hi,
>
> GitHub Actions builds have been piling up in the build queue in the last few
> days.
> I posted on bui...@apache.org
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/6lbqr0f6
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/xkfl5px7qgt5rrxw5pj0g318r6mbdlz1
Given the proposal is accepted, as the next step I will proceed to req
+1 (binding)
-Lari
On 2022/08/29 13:25:51 tison wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> This is the official thread VOTE for PIP-200 Package Pulsar Trino distro
> and config in a dedicated folder.
>
> Here is the PIP issue: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/17137
> Here is the discussion thread:
> https://
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
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
1 - 100 of 784 matches
Mail list logo
