Hi Michael,
+1,
Thanks for the great work.
We will continue on the PR cherry-picking and the release process to make
sure the urgent release can be done ASAP.
Penghui
On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 3:42 PM Michael Marshall
wrote:
> Given the log4j CVE, we should work to release 2.7.4.
>
> I started
+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
tests, maybe a flaky test, we need to ensure it's
not a regression.
We are continuing on the test part.
Penghui
On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 5:36 PM PengHui Li wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> +1,
>
> Thanks for the great work.
> We will continue on the PR cherry-picking and the
i wrote:
> 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
> > >
> > > Ma
TE for 2.7.4
> >
> > Regards
> > Jiwei Guo (Tboy)
> >
> >
> >> On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 3:11 PM PengHui Li wrote:
> >>
> >> Just put an update here. We have done the PR cherry-picking
> >>
> >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar
Congrats Marvin.
Penghui
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 5:46 PM 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 the community fo
Have you tried with this PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13248?
Penghui
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 6:42 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> I would change CI jobs by adding "
> -Dmaven.wagon.http.ssl.ignore.validity.dates=true"
>
> but that should considered some kind of security problem as we co
Thanks for the update, I will move it 2.7.5
Thanks,
Penghui
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 9:47 AM Matteo Merli wrote:
> Let's take https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12484 out of the
> picture since it's failing the tests.
>
>
> --
> Matteo Merli
>
>
> On Sun
Thanks, ZhangJian.
Looking forward to your PR.
Penghui
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 1:40 PM ZhangJian He wrote:
> After discussing it with Matteo. It’s prob not backward compatible.
>
> I will work on a fix.
>
> Thanks
> ZhangJian He
>
> ZhangJian He 于2021年12月14日周二 12:57写道：
>
> > I found a change
+1
Penghui
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 3:20 AM Matteo Merli wrote:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13306
>
>
> Pasted below for quoting convenience.
>
>
>
>
> ## Motivation
>
> In Pulsar 2.8, we have introduced a setting to control the amount of memory
> used by a client instance
+1
Penghui
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 2:15 AM Matteo Merli wrote:
> Pasted below for quoting convenience.
>
>
>
>
> ## Motivation
>
> The consistent hashing implementation to uniformly assign keys to consumers
> in the context of a KeyShared subscription, was introduced in
> https://githu
+1
Penghui
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 1:18 AM Matteo Merli wrote:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13302
>
> Copying here for quoting convenience
>
>
>
>
>
> ## Motivation
>
> Pulsar standalone is the "Pulsar in a box" version of a Pulsar cluster,
> where
> all the components are sta
+1
Penghui
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 2:03 AM Matteo Merli wrote:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13304
>
>
> Pasted below for quoting convenience.
>
> ---
>
>
> ## Motivation
>
> After all the work done for PIP-45 that was already included in 2.8 and 2.9
> releases, it enabled the c
We should contain #13291 in 2.8.2.
Penghui
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 7:19 PM ZhangJian He wrote:
> Hello,
> @LinLin @lipenghui
>
> I want to discuss if #13291 should contains in release 2.8.2.
>
> It's a compatible problem since 2.8, and we already commited it to master
> and branch 2.9
>
>
> Tha
Checked:
- Build from the src
- Check signatures
- Follow the validation process
But when I try to verify PulsarSQL, got following exceptions:
```
2021-12-17T14:58:18.958+0800 ERROR remote-task-callback-3
io.prestosql.execution.StageStateMachine Stage
20211217_065818_1_cahiv.1 failed
com.goo
Hi Enrico,
I'm ok, it only happens when the message is without a schema version.
So I'm not giving -1.
Thanks,
Penghui
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 7:33 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Peng Hui,
>
> Il giorno ven 17 dic 2021 alle ore 08:09 PengHui Li
> ha
> scritto:
>
the image using the same mvn commands (^^^), or is
> there some other way to build it?
>
> Thank you,
> Max
>
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 at 16:18, 陳智弘 wrote:
>
> > Hi PengHu,
> >
> > Will this issue be fixed in the future releases?
> >
> > PengHui Li
+1 binding
Penghui
Enrico Olivelli 于2021年12月18日 周六18:39写道：
> +1 (binding)
>
> - Run release validation procedure
> - CI is passing on those sources
>
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno sab 18 dic 2021 alle ore 02:51 PengHui Li
> ha
> scritto:
>
> > > Will
5 VOTEs, 3 of them were binding.
>
> - Matteo Merli (binding)
> - Enrico Olivelli (binding)
> - Peng Hui (binding)
> - Nicolò Boschi
> - Massimiliano Mirelli
>
> I will move forward with the next steps
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/Release-process
>
> Enrico
021 alle ore 13:21 PengHui Li
> ha
> scritto:
>
> > Hi Enrico,
> >
> > Have you checked the CI status after completing the 2.9.1 PRs
> > cherry-picking?
> >
>
> When I created the tag I am pretty sure that CI on GH actions passed.
>
> I hope tha
+1 (binding)
Check signature,
Run standalone,
Verify Cassandra connector,
Verify Function
Verify PusarSQL, still have `java.nio.BufferUnderflowException`, but it
only happens on the topic created by the Function,
I have tried to publish new string messages to a new topic, and query data
from the t
Hi Lin Lin
Which version you are working on the test?
Do you have any steps to reproduce the issue?
We'd better fix the problem in 2.10.
Regards,
Penghui
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:06 AM Lin Lin wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/12/14 18:03:20 Matteo Merli wrote:
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues
+1 (binding)
- check signatures
- build from sources
- verify Cassandra connector
- verify functions
Thanks for the great work.
Penghui
On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 7:28 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> - built from sources, JDK8 in MacOS
> - run pulsar standalone, smoke tests
> - veri
+1
Penghui
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 6:57 PM ZhangJian He wrote:
> +1
>
> Christophe Bornet 于2021年12月22日周三 17:38写道：
>
> > +1
> >
> > Le mer. 22 déc. 2021 à 00:46, Matteo Merli a écrit :
> >
> > > This is the voting thread for PIP-120. It will stay open for at least
> > 48h.
> > >
> > > https://
I think we can create a consumer with the DLQ init subscription and then
close the consumer?
This will make the implementation easier.
Penghui
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 4:49 PM Zike Yang
wrote:
> > We can avoid confusion by only attempting to create the subscription
> > when `initSubscriptionName
+1
Penghui
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 3:31 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> very good
>
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno mer 22 dic 2021 alle ore 03:37 mattison chao <
> mattisonc...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Dec 2021 at 07:59, Matteo Merli wrote:
> >
> > > This is the voting thread for
+1
Penghui
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 7:49 AM Matteo Merli wrote:
> This is the voting thread for PIP-117. It will stay open for at least 48h.
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13302
>
>
>
> ## Motivation
>
> Pulsar standalone is the "Pulsar in a box" version of a Pulsar cluster,
>
+1
Penghui
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 7:23 AM Matteo Merli wrote:
> This is the voting thread for PIP-119. It will stay open for at least 48h.
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13305
>
> ---
>
> ## Motivation
>
> The consistent hashing implementation to uniformly assign keys to c
+1
Penghui
On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 7:22 AM Matteo Merli wrote:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13304
>
> Following the discussion, I have updated the proposal to also include
> the deprecation and renaming of the config setting name to
> `metadataSessionExpiredPolicy`.
>
>
>
> ---
Great work!.
Penghui
On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 10:04 PM mattison chao
wrote:
> great work!
>
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2021 at 19:23, 陳智弘 wrote:
>
> > I am really appreciate those contributors and volunteers to make this
> > release happen!
> >
> > Dianjin Wang 於 2021年12月24日 週五 16:43 寫道：
> >
> > > Great
Hi, everyone
I hope you’ve all been doing well. I would like to start an email thread to
discuss features that we planned for 2.10.0.
According to the time-based release plan
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-47%3A-Time-Based-Release-Plan,
we should release 2.10.0 at the end of December 20
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13528
Pasted below for quoting convenience.
-
PIP 130: Apply redelivery backoff policy for ack timeout
## Motivation
PIP 106
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-106%3A-Negative-acknowledgment-backoff
introduced negative acknowledgment message r
+1,
We can only skip the topic level messages size check for the chunk message.
Regards,
Penghui
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 3:37 PM Haiting Jiang
wrote:
> Hi Pulsar Community,
>
> I discovered a bug that chunk messages producing fails if topic level
> maxMessageSize is set [1]. The root cause of
sure that we are not breaking anything.
> Pulsar client and Consumer are configurable using a map of key value pairs.
> So we must take care of not changing the behaviour.
>
> What do you mean with 'redelivery backorder has not been released yet'?
>
>
> Enrico
>
> Il
+1
Thanks,
Penghui
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 10:29 AM Haiting Jiang
wrote:
> This is the voting thread for PIP-131. It will stay open for at least 48h.
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13544
>
> The discussion thread is
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/c63d9s73j9x1m3dkqr3r38gyp8s7cwzf
What is the background of the requirement?
Usually, we will not force to close the producer and consumer at the
server-side,
because we don't if the client-side can handle this case well.
Or, if the topic will retire, and you don't want the clients to connect to
it, you can just terminate the topi
Looks there is no objection, I will start the official vote for PIP-130
Regards,
Penghui
On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 8:25 PM Haiting Jiang
wrote:
> +1 for this PIP.
>
> Do we have plans for other languages clients? like go?
>
> Thanks,
> Haiting Jiang
>
> On 2021/12/27 1
This is the voting thread for PIP-130. It will stay open for at least 48
hours.
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13528
Pasted below for quoting convenience.
-
PIP 130: Apply redelivery backoff policy for ack timeout
## Motivation
PIP 106
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-10
Thanks, yu
Happy new year!
Penghui
On Jan 4, 2022, 7:48 AM +0800, dev@pulsar.apache.org, wrote:
>
> t
+1
Penghui
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 4:51 PM Hang Chen wrote:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13315
>
> Pasted below for quoting convenience.
>
>
> ### Motivation
> We have geo-replication to support Pulsar cluster level failover. We
> can setup Pulsar cluster A as a primary cluster
Thanks for the great comments, Michael.
Let me try to clarify some context about the issue that users encountered
and the improvement that the proposal wants to Introduce.
> Before we get further into the implementation, I'd like to discuss
whether the current behavior is the expected behavior, a
+1
Thanks,
Penghui
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 5:23 PM 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 import
Thanks for the great work!
Regards,
Penghui
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 10:16 PM linlin wrote:
> The Apache Pulsar team is proud to announce Apache Pulsar version 2.8.2.
>
> Pulsar is a highly scalable, low latency messaging platform running on
> commodity hardware. It provides simple pub-sub semant
We have a pluggable broker interceptor,
> I think we need to trigger some event as bellow:
- [ ] Client connected
- [ ] Client disconnected
- [ ] Consumer subscribe
- [ ] Consumer unsubscribe
- [ ] Producer publish
- [ ] Message delivered
- [ ] Message acked
For these events, the broker intercept
t; could take to subscribe to a topic.
>
> This feature solves the DLQ message loss issue because the DLQ
> producer can produce to any namespace, which is important for clusters
> that do not have topic level policies enabled.
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Thanks,
> M
+1 (binding)
Penghui
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 4:38 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno lun 10 gen 2022 alle ore 07:45 Hang Chen
> ha scritto:
> >
> > This is the voting thread for PIP-121. It will stay open for at least 48
> > hours.
> >
> > https://github.com/apac
n Gao
> >
> > On 2022/01/04 03:34:33 PengHui Li wrote:
> > > This is the voting thread for PIP-130. It will stay open for at least
> 48
> > > hours.
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13528
> > >
> > > Pasted below for qu
+1
Penghui
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 8:39 AM mattison chao
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 08:09, Matteo Merli wrote:
>
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13717
> >
> > -
> >
> > ## Motivation
> >
> > Since all the pieces that composed the proposal in PIP-45 were finally
> >
+1 It's a nice approach for making sure the ledger can be deleted correctly.
Regards,
Penghui
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:23 AM Zhanpeng Wu
wrote:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13526
>
>
>
> ## Motivation
>
> Under the current ledger-trimming design in
> `org.apache.bookkeeper.m
Hi Pulsar Community,
I want to start a discussion about introducing an icebox label that can be
added to
the issue or PR by pulsar bot automatically to help us can focus on the
active PRs
and issue. To avoid missing merge PRs, review PRs, triage issues.
It looks like the following:
1. If the iss
riod be made a configuration parameter to make it easy to
adjust?
Yes, we can easy to change the CI params.
Thank you Dave for the quick response.
Penghui
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:48 AM Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> > On Jan 12, 2022, at 8:15 AM, PengHui Li wrote:
> >
> &
I have no objection to the motivation.
Just one thing is the PR changed many files, I guess we will get many
conflicts there.
With a few conflicts, we can handle them confidently and submit them
directly to branches.
If there are many conflicts, I would suggest creating PR direct to the
branch so
+1
Penghui
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 7:54 AM Aloys Zhang wrote:
> +1
>
> Michael Marshall 于2022年1月12日周三 13:37写道：
>
> > +1 - assuming we ensure that the `ThresholdShedder` has unit test
> coverage.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 9:53 PM r...@apache.org >
> > wrot
+1 (binding)
This is a behavior change, which we should highlight in the release note.
Penghui
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:44 AM Chris Herzog
wrote:
> +1 (non)
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 9:46 PM r...@apache.org
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > --
> > Thanks
> > Xiaolong Ran
> >
> > m
I'm not sure if the bots can detect if the change is a Java client change,
maybe based on the changes introduced in which directory.
The main headache here is missing it. If there are some mechanisms that can
remind us.
It will be great. Looks like
"hey, new changes introduced in Java client, you
I agree with the point, we should avoid the `clearNamespaceBacklog(String
namespace)` to apply to the internal topic or internal cursor.
It will introduce abnormal behaviors, e.g. clear a replication cursor
backlog, clear a dedup cursor backlog, clear a compaction cursor backlog.
I would suggest l
+1 (binding)
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 4:32 PM Aloys Zhang wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Haiting Jiang 于2022年1月14日周五 16:12写道：
>
> > +1 (non)
> >
> > On 2022/01/14 03:23:37 mattison chao wrote:
> > > +1 (non-binding)
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Mattison
> > >
> > > On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 at 11:19, Hang C
+1 (binding)
Regards,
Penghui
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 9:24 PM Joe F wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 4:46 AM Enrico Olivelli
> wrote:
>
> > Il Sab 15 Gen 2022, 09:10 tamer Abdlatif ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > > Will that affect the existing ZK metadata in a pulsar instance , When
Congratulations.
Penghui
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 6:54 PM sourav agrawal
wrote:
> Congratulations Lari. 🥂
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 4:13 PM Christophe Bornet
> wrote:
>
> > Congrats Lari !
> >
> > Le lun. 17 janv. 2022 à 21:50, Dave Fisher a écrit :
> >
> > > Hi -
> > >
> > > The Apache Pulsa
Close the VOTE with 3 (+1) + 2 bindings and 0 (-1) bindings
Thanks,
Penghui
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 10:30 AM Lin Lin wrote:
> +1
>
> On 2021/12/29 02:29:21 Haiting Jiang wrote:
> > This is the voting thread for PIP-131. It will stay open for at least
> 48h.
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pul
+1 for adding the DLQ_init_sub to producer metadata so that we don't
need to introduce a new field in CommandProducer, and the new field
looks a little confusing
Thanks,
Penghui
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 10:19 PM Hang Chen wrote:
> Thanks for creating this proposal Zike Yang. I have two ideas abo
>
> What is the justification for avoiding the new protobuf field? If we
> add a structured field to a map of , we are still
> modifying the protocol, even if we aren't modifying the protobuf.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 8:38 AM PengHui Li
I have added the PIP to the WIKI page https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki
Thanks for the great work Zhanpeng,
Regards,
Penghui
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 4:05 PM Zhanpeng Wu
wrote:
> Thanks for your participation. Close the vote with 3 (+1) bindings and 3
> (+1) non-bindings, 0 (-1).
>
> Lin Li
The Signature failed to verify
```
~/Downloads/release_2.9.2 » gpg --verify apache-pulsar-2.9.2-bin.tar.gz.asc
gpg: assuming signed data in 'apache-pulsar-2.9.2-bin.tar.gz'
gpg: Signature made Sat Jan 22 21:28:07 2022 CST
gpg:using RSA key 9F6FE6F28CC92CCB54B4E6F6C54B95E1C9106DA3
g
Congratulations!
Penghui
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 6:17 PM Yu wrote:
> Congratulations! And thanks for contributing docs!
>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 4:36 PM ZhangJian He wrote:
>
> > Congratulations!
> >
> > Thanks
> > ZhangJian He
> >
> > Enrico Olivelli 于2022年1月21日周五 15:42写道：
> >
> > > Congr
imited to the DLQ
> producer.)
> > >
> > > > we also introduce some system message properties such as
> > > > __original_message_id
> > > > in retry letter topic.
> > >
> > > Thanks for this context. I didn't know we were already
+1 (binding)
Regards,
Penghui
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 12:17 PM Michael Marshall
wrote:
> +1 (non binding) - this proposal looks great! Thank you for a good
> discussion of this feature!
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 8:20 PM Hang Chen wrote:
> >
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > Than
+1
Penghui
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:46 AM mattison chao
wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I want to start a discussion about PIP-139 : Support Broker send command
> to real close producer/consumer.
>
> This is the PIP document
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13989 <
> https://github.co
It's not a regression in 2.9.2, we should not block the 2.9.2 release.
Instead, we can have the fix in 2.9.3.
Penghui
On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 8:42 PM Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> Hi Ran, thanks for driving the release.
>
> I haven't tested the rc yet but I firmly believe we should include this
> pull
+1 (binding)
1. Checked the signature
2. Build from the source successfully
3. Start standalone
4. Publish and consume successfully
5. Cassandra connect works well
6. Checked state function
And passed our internal integration tests.
Regards,
Penghui
On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 4:37 PM PengHui Li
onsume
> > 4. Checked the Pulsar function and stateful functions
> > 5. Run Pulsar with KOP and publish and consume successfully with Kafka
> > 3.1.0 client
> >
> > Best,
> > Hang
> >
> > PengHui Li 于2022年2月7日周一 18:01写道：
> > >
> > >
s for stable features. We may not have known
> about this regression in 2.9.1, but we know about it now, before the 2.9.2
> vote has closed.
>
> > If the time-based release doesn't work, I think we should have a
> discussion
> > in the private email list
>
> I request
Guo wrote:
> +1.
>
> All make sense to me!
>
> We probably need to move to the feature frozen stage in order to cut a
> release at the end of January.
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 8:46 PM PengHui Li wrote:
>
> > Hi, everyone
> >
> >
ranch without
> impacting the stability of 2.10
>
> This way people can start validating 2.10 seriously in order to catch
> problems before sending out the RC
>
> Does it sound like a good idea to you ?
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno mer 9 feb 2022 alle ore 09:25 PengHui Li
> h
0,
> we should take into consideration the voice of our users.
>
> I am not going to VOTE -1, but I will hold off casting a vote on 2.9.2RC0
>
> Gao, please consider my vote as "-0"
>
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno mer 9 feb 2022 alle ore 09:14 PengHui Li
> ha scritto
+1
Thank you!
- Penghui
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:18 AM Lari Hotari wrote:
> +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 importan
It should not be a blocking issue, as I mentioned before we can work around
and the issue happens for specific conditions
And there are some other ongoing transaction fixes, for transactions using
the latest branch-2.9 is the best option, not 2.9.2 even contain
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull
Congratulations, Aloys Zhang
Thanks,
Penghui
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:19 AM ZhangJian He wrote:
> Congratulations, Aloys Zhang!
>
> Thanks
> ZhangJian He
>
> r...@apache.org 于2022年2月10日周四 11:16写道：
>
> > Congratulations, Aloys Zhang!
> >
> > --
> > Thanks
> > Xiaolong Ran
> >
> > linlin 于20
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 05:11 PengHui Li
> ha scritto:
> >
> > It should not be a blocking issue, as I mentioned before we can work
> around
> > and the issue happens for specific conditions
> > And there are some other ongoing transactio
; Hang
>
> Enrico Olivelli 于2022年2月10日周四 16:15写道：
> >
> > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 08:39 PengHui Li
> > ha scritto:
> > >
> > > Enrico,
> > >
> > > There are 40 closed PRs
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pu
> Please go ahead with the release, I won't VOTE on this thread.
But I hope we can follow up soon with a new release, otherwise due to that
bug
you cannot enable transactions on your Pulsar cluster if you have to
support Pulsar client that do not enable transactions
Yes, agree. We will follow up
gt;
>
> I tested the artifacts, so I'll put my vote here:
>
>
> +1 (non binding)
>
>
> Checks:
>
> - Checksum and signatures
>
> - Apache Rat check passes
>
> - Compile from source w JDK11
>
> - Build docker image from source
>
> - Run Pulsar standalo
f we do 2.9.2 with all
> current changes from branch-2.9, the commit for PR 14089 would have to be
> reverted before the next release.
> Another possibility is to skip 2.9.2 completely and proceed directly with
> 2.9.3 release.
>
> -Lari
>
> On 2022/02/11 08:28:58 PengHui Li wr
Hi Lari,
There are 5 open PRs
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A2.10.0
and #14225 is a release blocker.
For #13376 and #13341, we are preparing the testing, to make sure they can
safely ship to 2.10.0
For #10478, it's a critical fix for the current message rede
- Verified the signature
- Start the standalone and checked message publish and consumption
- Validate Cassandra connector
- Validate stateful function
Hi Lari, I have checked the CI status for branch-2.7
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commits/branch-2.7
There are 4 failed tests, could you pleas
here.
Regards,
Penghui
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 8:55 PM PengHui Li wrote:
> Hi Lari,
>
> There are 5 open PRs
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A2.10.0
> and #14225 is a release blocker.
> For #13376 and #13341, we are preparing the testing,
wrote:
> +1 non-binding
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 1:09 AM Hang Chen wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Best,
> > Hang
> >
> > PengHui Li 于2022年2月10日周四 12:06写道：
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > >
>
i,
> >
> > Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, I sent out the VOTE email for
> > 2.8.3 before I read this email. Please let me know when there is a fix
> > in place. In this case, we'll need to create an RC 2.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Michael
> >
&
Sorry Michael
There is a breaking change introduced in branch-2.8.
Sorry for that I forget to update the 2.8.3 release process,
Only update the context in 2.9.2 and 2.10.0.
We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
to
Hi all,
The PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14288 needs more eyes to
unblock the 2.10.0 release.
The PR fixes a breaking change in the branch-2.9, branch-2.8, and master
branches.
Thanks,
Penghui
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:32 PM PengHui Li wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Please help re
us in congratulating and welcoming Li Li onboard!
Best Regards,
Penghui Li on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
2.7
> in this PR that I made to run the tests:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14240 . rev a27e0853bda is the last
> commit before the 2.7.5 release commit in branch-2.7 .
>
> I'll count your vote as +1 since all tests have passed.
>
> -Lari
>
> On 2
Hi Ran,
I think all the PRs that block the 2.9.2 release are merged.
Could you please help cherry-pick the PRs and start a new RC?
Thanks,
Penghui
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 8:25 PM PengHui Li wrote:
> Hi Lari,
>
> We have another issue that needs to confirm if it will introduce break
> Was this about the issue which this PR
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14283 resolved (since it is merged)?
I have the feeling that some past problems haven't been analyzed properly
before deciding on the solution. There seems to be an understanding that
switching from synchronous programm
abeled after I
> cherry picked PRs on Friday. I will take a look and try to cherry pick
> all of those before tagging the next release candidate.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:52 AM PengHui Li wrote:
> >
> > Sorry Michael
> &
ght?
Do you suggest that we discuss this in the email when we find our internal
test errors?
The community has no responsibility to deal with our internal testing bugs.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 8:04 AM Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 2022, at 3:59 PM, PengHui Li wrote:
> >
ed very earlier
Here is the issue https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/4756
And here is also a related fix https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/10619
Thanks,
Penghui
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:52 PM Lari Hotari wrote:
> On 2022/02/15 14:13:59 PengHui Li wrote:
> > The ration
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
> > > blocked. we&
with error
> code 1
> > -
> org.apache.pulsar.tests.integration.compaction.TestCompaction#testPublishCompactAndConsumeCLI
> > org.testng.internal.thread.ThreadTimeoutException: Method
> org.apache.pulsar.tests.integration.compaction.TestCompaction.testPublishCompactAndConsumeCL
the vote before next Monday(GMT+8)
Regards
Penghui
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:22 PM PengHui Li wrote:
> Hi lari,
>
> > So finally, I understand that "the problem" is that all HTTP server
> threads are blocked and this makes the Pulsar Admin API unavailable.
>
>
1 - 100 of 972 matches
Mail list logo
