Re: [DISCUSS] New repository for website - pulsar-site

Hi Dave, Thanks for creating the pulsar-site repo [1]! We (urf...@apache.org) are working on PIP 87 [2] and want to build and preview the Pulsar website with the new version of Docusarus. As discussed before, our community has been considering bringing website content out of the Pulsar repo.

Re: [Survey] How do you like the new Pulsar website?

Hi Pulsarers, Thanks for providing valuable feedback on the 2022 Pulsar Website Survey! We've triaged all the issues and will improve the website accordingly, including but not limited to appearance (font size, line spacing, images, etc), content (tagline, documentation, Ecosystem page, etc), a

New Pulsar Website is Live!

Hi everyone, As you may notice, the new Pulsar website goes live! [1] We hope you enjoy the new content and the fresh appearance! Do not hesitate to leave your comment here [2] if you have any suggestions or concerns, thanks! [1] https://pulsar.apache.org/ [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/

Re: [DISCUSS] Enable GitHub Discussions?

Hi Dave Fisher, any thoughts on enabling GitHub Discussions? Thank you. On 2022/06/27 02:41:12 Yu wrote: > +1 for enabling the GitHub Discussion as I proposed before. > > At that time, the main concern was not able to sync info between GitHub > Discussion and Mailing List. Since the concern can b

Re: 回复: [Discuss] PIP-190: Simplify Pulsar documentation release and maintenance strategy

+1 for this proposal since it improves the efficiency of managing docs. We'll take it as we reach a lazy consensus and implement this plan if there is no objection until tomorrow. On 2022/07/25 09:13:50 M Jun wrote: > Hi Asaf, > > The doc files for all older versions are independent copies, sto

Re: [Vote] PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions

Hi tison, Thanks for your suggestions! > Although, we should later move the standard to our website where the whole > project can easily contribute to ... Sure. I'll move the [Guide] Pulsar Pull Request Naming Convention [1] to a public place where everyone can contribute after we finalize th

Re: [Vote] PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions

Hi tison, Thanks for your suggestions! > Currently, I'd suggest: feature -> feat workflow -> ci improve/cleanup -> > chore... I agree on some and will send votes step by step to let the community decide. On 2022/08/09 09:21:54 tison wrote: > Hi Yu, > > To be clear, the candidates of types an

Re: [Discuss] PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions

Hi team Thanks for your feedback! Here is the voting result: Our existing convention (customized based on Angular) is chosen! ~~ Our existing convention votes: 5, +1: Yu, Alex, Yunze, Jun, Qiang, 1, +0: tison Angular convention votes: 1, +1: tison ~~ I’ll close this discussion and

Re: [Discussion] PIP 198 - How to define [type] and [scope]?

Thanks Max! Agree with applying the same rules ( [type] [scope] summary) for writing issue titles. On 2022/08/25 02:48:51 Max Xu wrote: > LGTM. > > And I think we should also update our issue templates. > > Best, > Max Xu > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 6:04 PM Yu wrote: > > > Hi team, > >

Re: Pulsar CI congested, master branch build broken

Thanks Lari! Does this issue cause the tests for PRs like https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/17198 to be hang? On 2022/09/06 14:41:07 Dave Fisher wrote: > We are going to need to take actions to fix our problems. See > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-23633?focusedCommentId=176007

Re: PIP-214 has been proceeded without consensus

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? >