You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pulsar.apache.org by Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> on 2023/04/21 05:36:26 UTC
[NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Hi, all
We found that there were a lot of commits that were cherry-picked to
branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to reach a
consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone were also
cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the corresponding
cherry-picked commits:
* https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
* https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
* https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
* https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
* https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
* https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
* https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
* https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
* https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
According to our release policy[0] and the code freeze notification
[1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0 will
require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking.
Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide the context for
why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Then mark it with
the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach a consensus.
I would like to start a discussion regarding the context for the above
cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in Pulsar 3.0?
If there is still no consensus for the above commits, we may need to
revert them before the RC3.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let
us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
[0] https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
Thanks,
Zike Yang
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>.
Perhaps we can document any known issues in the release notes with an
indication of when they will be patched? That might help users
determine whether to upgrade now or to wait for the next patch
release.
Thanks,
Michael
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:06 AM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, I just want to understand the process here and try to make it more
> clear.
> We'd better set a timeline for new feature fixes in the next feature
> release.
> After the timeline, we only accept fixes for security issues and
> regressions.
>
> Thanks,
> Penghui
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:57 PM Christophe Bornet <bo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Yes I agree that we should not ship buggy features.
> > But also we decided on a time-based release plan so I'd be in favor of
> > delaying features that are not fully tested to the next release. Hiding
> > them behind feature flags if needed.
> > If we do frequent, regular releases, this should not be an issue for users.
> > Of course this must be discussed in the community and we should make the
> > release process more clear about that.
> > We learn as we do the things 🙂.
> >
> >
> > Le lun. 24 avr. 2023 à 12:48, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> a
> > écrit
> > :
> > >
> > > Il Lun 24 Apr 2023, 12:35 PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > Can we cherry-pick fixes for the new features that were introduced to
> > > > 3.0.0?
> > > > We do lots of chaos testing, stress testing for new delayed messages,
> > and
> > > > load balancer
> > > > before the 3.0.0 release. Is it reasonable to have the fixes without
> > > > releasing buggy
> > > > features?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I 100% agree
> > > But RM but be aware and they should do the cherry picks
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > >
> > > > Or the testing should be completed before the code freeze, otherwise,
> > push
> > > > to the next feature release.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Penghui
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:08 PM Christophe Bornet <
> > bornet.chris@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Zike,
> > > > >
> > > > > I just reverted the commits of PIP-195 (minutes before your mail 😄)
> > > > > except for
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > > Maybe we should keep that one since it will be a breaking change if
> > we
> > > > > do it later.
> > > > >
> > > > > Le lun. 24 avr. 2023 à 11:52, Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> a écrit :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, all
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Based on the above discussion, I will revert all these commits.
> > They
> > > > > > are all related to the improvement of the PIP-195:
> > > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This commit has been reverted:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And we keep these two commits for Pulsar 3.0.0:
> > > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @Nicolò Could you provide more context for this commit:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > > > ?
> > > > > > Do we need to include it in Pulsar 3.0.0?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please let me know if you have any questions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 5:23 PM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Michael
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for your explanation. I'm +1 for keeping these commits.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 12:47 AM Michael Marshall <
> > > > > mmarshall@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those
> > > > > commits except:
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can you enumerate which commits you want to revert? 19849 was
> > not
> > > > > > > > cherry picked, so it is not relevant to this discussion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I feel strongly that we need to keep the following commits:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/370f6d7af78fa7bd8f92f8116fac4e3cf32adecb
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Justification: I broke the AuthenticationProviderList with my
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > > from PIP 97. This commit fixes that regression from 2.11.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/b839536cb05a0e1c737d9fb87edae1e054fd301b
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Justification: this fixes a broken error log to help users
> > quickly
> > > > > > > > identify a Kubernetes bug that users of the OIDC plugin will
> > > > > > > > definitely encounter. I spent at least 4 hours earlier this
> > week
> > > > > > > > tracking down an issue that would have been obvious had the
> > error
> > > > log
> > > > > > > > been correct. The change is very small and easy to understand,
> > and
> > > > > > > > will save users a lot of time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Justification: this is a one line bug fix that is necessary for
> > > > OIDC
> > > > > > > > to work in function pods. It is well understood and covered by
> > a
> > > > > test.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Michael
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 5:27 AM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we
> > start
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code
> > > > freeze
> > > > > > > > > > becomes pointless.
> > > > > > > > > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those
> > > > > enhancements.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Totally +1 for this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For
> > more
> > > > > complex
> > > > > > > > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a
> > thread
> > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I still recommend discussing the cherry-pick on the mailing
> > list.
> > > > > > > > > For the LTS release, we need to be very careful when
> > > > cherry-picking
> > > > > > > > > the commit. All cherry-picked commits that enter the LTS
> > version
> > > > > > > > > should be noticed for everyone. They should all be considered
> > as
> > > > > > > > > important changes. Another benefit of discussing it in the
> > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > list is that we can keep the context of the cherry-pick
> > > > > permanently.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As long as we have a consensus, then any committers can
> > > > > cherry-pick the commit.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 6:08 PM Cong Zhao <
> > zhaocong@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I agree with this, other PRs can move to 3.0.1.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 09:43:20 Christophe Bornet wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all
> > those
> > > > > commits except:
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we
> > > > > start to
> > > > > > > > > > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the
> > code
> > > > > freeze
> > > > > > > > > > > becomes pointless.
> > > > > > > > > > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those
> > > > > enhancements.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do we have an agreement on this ?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Christophe
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Le ven. 21 avr. 2023 à 11:36, Cong Zhao <
> > zhaocong@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I strongly agree that these cherry-pick should be
> > notified
> > > > > to the release managers to avoid unintended consequences.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086 is to
> > solve
> > > > > a serious bug it will lead to the pulsar-io block, so it is very
> > > > necessary
> > > > > to cherry-pick into 3.0. The rest of the PRs are optimized for large
> > > > > amounts of data, we also can discuss whether they are necessary to
> > > > > cherry-pick into 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 07:26:43 Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that currently there's no clear process in
> > > > place
> > > > > in order to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into
> > the
> > > > > frozen branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I know that we have a slack channel for the release
> > > > > coordination
> > > > > > > > > > > > > #pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > One solution would be to let the release managers
> > > > > cherry-pick the commits -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > they are the contributors more focused on the
> > stability
> > > > of
> > > > > the release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > branch and they might be able to discuss if it's
> > > > > worthwhile.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Their opinion is not more important than others, but
> > they
> > > > > need to know it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and
> > avoid
> > > > > unintended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > consequences.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of
> > stuff.
> > > > For
> > > > > more complex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start
> > a
> > > > > thread here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit,
> > > > > instead of directly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > going for it without any discussion, they can ask in
> > the
> > > > > release slack
> > > > > > > > > > > > > channel.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved
> > to
> > > > > the mailing list. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that
> > > > > currently we rely on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the common sense of committers.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicolò Boschi
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <
> > > > > zhaocong@apache.org> ha
> > > > > > > > > > > > > scritto:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Zike,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed
> > message
> > > > PRs
> > > > > to branch-3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since
> > it
> > > > > is the new feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the delayed message and has no impact on other
> > > > > components.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix
> > some
> > > > > problem with the new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > delayed message and make this new feature work
> > better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Need to cherry-pick PR:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We found that there were a lot of commits that
> > were
> > > > > cherry-picked to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification
> > to
> > > > > reach a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0
> > milestone
> > > > > were also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the
> > > > > corresponding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > According to our release policy[0] and the code
> > > > freeze
> > > > > notification
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked
> > into
> > > > > branch-3.0 will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > require reaching the consensus before
> > cherry-picking.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to
> > provide
> > > > > the context for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0.
> > > > Then
> > > > > mark it with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to
> > reach
> > > > > a consensus.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the
> > > > > context for the above
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in
> > > > > Pulsar 3.0?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is still no consensus for the above
> > commits,
> > > > > we may need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > revert them before the RC3.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you have any questions or concerns, please do
> > not
> > > > > hesitate to let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [0]
> > > > > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>.
Yes, I just want to understand the process here and try to make it more
clear.
We'd better set a timeline for new feature fixes in the next feature
release.
After the timeline, we only accept fixes for security issues and
regressions.
Thanks,
Penghui
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:57 PM Christophe Bornet <bo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yes I agree that we should not ship buggy features.
> But also we decided on a time-based release plan so I'd be in favor of
> delaying features that are not fully tested to the next release. Hiding
> them behind feature flags if needed.
> If we do frequent, regular releases, this should not be an issue for users.
> Of course this must be discussed in the community and we should make the
> release process more clear about that.
> We learn as we do the things 🙂.
>
>
> Le lun. 24 avr. 2023 à 12:48, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> a
> écrit
> :
> >
> > Il Lun 24 Apr 2023, 12:35 PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Can we cherry-pick fixes for the new features that were introduced to
> > > 3.0.0?
> > > We do lots of chaos testing, stress testing for new delayed messages,
> and
> > > load balancer
> > > before the 3.0.0 release. Is it reasonable to have the fixes without
> > > releasing buggy
> > > features?
> > >
> >
> >
> > I 100% agree
> > But RM but be aware and they should do the cherry picks
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> >
> > > Or the testing should be completed before the code freeze, otherwise,
> push
> > > to the next feature release.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Penghui
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:08 PM Christophe Bornet <
> bornet.chris@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Zike,
> > > >
> > > > I just reverted the commits of PIP-195 (minutes before your mail 😄)
> > > > except for
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > Maybe we should keep that one since it will be a breaking change if
> we
> > > > do it later.
> > > >
> > > > Le lun. 24 avr. 2023 à 11:52, Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> a écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, all
> > > > >
> > > > > Based on the above discussion, I will revert all these commits.
> They
> > > > > are all related to the improvement of the PIP-195:
> > > > > *
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > > *
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > > > *
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > > > *
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > > > *
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > > >
> > > > > This commit has been reverted:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > > >
> > > > > And we keep these two commits for Pulsar 3.0.0:
> > > > > *
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > > *
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > > > >
> > > > > @Nicolò Could you provide more context for this commit:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > > ?
> > > > > Do we need to include it in Pulsar 3.0.0?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please let me know if you have any questions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 5:23 PM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Michael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for your explanation. I'm +1 for keeping these commits.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 12:47 AM Michael Marshall <
> > > > mmarshall@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those
> > > > commits except:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you enumerate which commits you want to revert? 19849 was
> not
> > > > > > > cherry picked, so it is not relevant to this discussion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I feel strongly that we need to keep the following commits:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/370f6d7af78fa7bd8f92f8116fac4e3cf32adecb
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Justification: I broke the AuthenticationProviderList with my
> > > changes
> > > > > > > from PIP 97. This commit fixes that regression from 2.11.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/b839536cb05a0e1c737d9fb87edae1e054fd301b
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Justification: this fixes a broken error log to help users
> quickly
> > > > > > > identify a Kubernetes bug that users of the OIDC plugin will
> > > > > > > definitely encounter. I spent at least 4 hours earlier this
> week
> > > > > > > tracking down an issue that would have been obvious had the
> error
> > > log
> > > > > > > been correct. The change is very small and easy to understand,
> and
> > > > > > > will save users a lot of time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Justification: this is a one line bug fix that is necessary for
> > > OIDC
> > > > > > > to work in function pods. It is well understood and covered by
> a
> > > > test.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Michael
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 5:27 AM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we
> start
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code
> > > freeze
> > > > > > > > > becomes pointless.
> > > > > > > > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those
> > > > enhancements.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Totally +1 for this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For
> more
> > > > complex
> > > > > > > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a
> thread
> > > > here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I still recommend discussing the cherry-pick on the mailing
> list.
> > > > > > > > For the LTS release, we need to be very careful when
> > > cherry-picking
> > > > > > > > the commit. All cherry-picked commits that enter the LTS
> version
> > > > > > > > should be noticed for everyone. They should all be considered
> as
> > > > > > > > important changes. Another benefit of discussing it in the
> > > mailing
> > > > > > > > list is that we can keep the context of the cherry-pick
> > > > permanently.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As long as we have a consensus, then any committers can
> > > > cherry-pick the commit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 6:08 PM Cong Zhao <
> zhaocong@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I agree with this, other PRs can move to 3.0.1.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 09:43:20 Christophe Bornet wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all
> those
> > > > commits except:
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we
> > > > start to
> > > > > > > > > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the
> code
> > > > freeze
> > > > > > > > > > becomes pointless.
> > > > > > > > > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those
> > > > enhancements.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do we have an agreement on this ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Christophe
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Le ven. 21 avr. 2023 à 11:36, Cong Zhao <
> zhaocong@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I strongly agree that these cherry-pick should be
> notified
> > > > to the release managers to avoid unintended consequences.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086 is to
> solve
> > > > a serious bug it will lead to the pulsar-io block, so it is very
> > > necessary
> > > > to cherry-pick into 3.0. The rest of the PRs are optimized for large
> > > > amounts of data, we also can discuss whether they are necessary to
> > > > cherry-pick into 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 07:26:43 Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that currently there's no clear process in
> > > place
> > > > in order to
> > > > > > > > > > > > decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into
> the
> > > > frozen branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I know that we have a slack channel for the release
> > > > coordination
> > > > > > > > > > > > #pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > One solution would be to let the release managers
> > > > cherry-pick the commits -
> > > > > > > > > > > > they are the contributors more focused on the
> stability
> > > of
> > > > the release
> > > > > > > > > > > > branch and they might be able to discuss if it's
> > > > worthwhile.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Their opinion is not more important than others, but
> they
> > > > need to know it
> > > > > > > > > > > > anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and
> avoid
> > > > unintended
> > > > > > > > > > > > consequences.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of
> stuff.
> > > For
> > > > more complex
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start
> a
> > > > thread here.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit,
> > > > instead of directly
> > > > > > > > > > > > going for it without any discussion, they can ask in
> the
> > > > release slack
> > > > > > > > > > > > channel.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved
> to
> > > > the mailing list. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that
> > > > currently we rely on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the common sense of committers.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Nicolò Boschi
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <
> > > > zhaocong@apache.org> ha
> > > > > > > > > > > > scritto:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Zike,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed
> message
> > > PRs
> > > > to branch-3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since
> it
> > > > is the new feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of the delayed message and has no impact on other
> > > > components.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix
> some
> > > > problem with the new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > delayed message and make this new feature work
> better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Need to cherry-pick PR:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We found that there were a lot of commits that
> were
> > > > cherry-picked to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification
> to
> > > > reach a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0
> milestone
> > > > were also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the
> > > > corresponding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > According to our release policy[0] and the code
> > > freeze
> > > > notification
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked
> into
> > > > branch-3.0 will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > require reaching the consensus before
> cherry-picking.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to
> provide
> > > > the context for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0.
> > > Then
> > > > mark it with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to
> reach
> > > > a consensus.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the
> > > > context for the above
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in
> > > > Pulsar 3.0?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is still no consensus for the above
> commits,
> > > > we may need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > revert them before the RC3.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you have any questions or concerns, please do
> not
> > > > hesitate to let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [0]
> > > > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by Christophe Bornet <bo...@gmail.com>.
Yes I agree that we should not ship buggy features.
But also we decided on a time-based release plan so I'd be in favor of
delaying features that are not fully tested to the next release. Hiding
them behind feature flags if needed.
If we do frequent, regular releases, this should not be an issue for users.
Of course this must be discussed in the community and we should make the
release process more clear about that.
We learn as we do the things 🙂.
Le lun. 24 avr. 2023 à 12:48, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> a écrit
:
>
> Il Lun 24 Apr 2023, 12:35 PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>
> > Can we cherry-pick fixes for the new features that were introduced to
> > 3.0.0?
> > We do lots of chaos testing, stress testing for new delayed messages,
and
> > load balancer
> > before the 3.0.0 release. Is it reasonable to have the fixes without
> > releasing buggy
> > features?
> >
>
>
> I 100% agree
> But RM but be aware and they should do the cherry picks
>
> Enrico
>
>
> > Or the testing should be completed before the code freeze, otherwise,
push
> > to the next feature release.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:08 PM Christophe Bornet <
bornet.chris@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Zike,
> > >
> > > I just reverted the commits of PIP-195 (minutes before your mail 😄)
> > > except for
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > Maybe we should keep that one since it will be a breaking change if we
> > > do it later.
> > >
> > > Le lun. 24 avr. 2023 à 11:52, Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > Hi, all
> > > >
> > > > Based on the above discussion, I will revert all these commits. They
> > > > are all related to the improvement of the PIP-195:
> > > > *
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > *
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > > *
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > > *
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > > *
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > >
> > > > This commit has been reverted:
> > > >
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > >
> > > > And we keep these two commits for Pulsar 3.0.0:
> > > > *
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > *
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > > >
> > > > @Nicolò Could you provide more context for this commit:
> > > >
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > ?
> > > > Do we need to include it in Pulsar 3.0.0?
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know if you have any questions.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Zike Yang
> > > > Zike Yang
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 5:23 PM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Michael
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your explanation. I'm +1 for keeping these commits.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 12:47 AM Michael Marshall <
> > > mmarshall@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those
> > > commits except:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you enumerate which commits you want to revert? 19849 was
not
> > > > > > cherry picked, so it is not relevant to this discussion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I feel strongly that we need to keep the following commits:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/370f6d7af78fa7bd8f92f8116fac4e3cf32adecb
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Justification: I broke the AuthenticationProviderList with my
> > changes
> > > > > > from PIP 97. This commit fixes that regression from 2.11.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/b839536cb05a0e1c737d9fb87edae1e054fd301b
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Justification: this fixes a broken error log to help users
quickly
> > > > > > identify a Kubernetes bug that users of the OIDC plugin will
> > > > > > definitely encounter. I spent at least 4 hours earlier this week
> > > > > > tracking down an issue that would have been obvious had the
error
> > log
> > > > > > been correct. The change is very small and easy to understand,
and
> > > > > > will save users a lot of time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Justification: this is a one line bug fix that is necessary for
> > OIDC
> > > > > > to work in function pods. It is well understood and covered by a
> > > test.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Michael
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 5:27 AM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org>
wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we
start
> > > to
> > > > > > > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code
> > freeze
> > > > > > > > becomes pointless.
> > > > > > > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those
> > > enhancements.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Totally +1 for this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For
more
> > > complex
> > > > > > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a
thread
> > > here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I still recommend discussing the cherry-pick on the mailing
list.
> > > > > > > For the LTS release, we need to be very careful when
> > cherry-picking
> > > > > > > the commit. All cherry-picked commits that enter the LTS
version
> > > > > > > should be noticed for everyone. They should all be considered
as
> > > > > > > important changes. Another benefit of discussing it in the
> > mailing
> > > > > > > list is that we can keep the context of the cherry-pick
> > > permanently.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As long as we have a consensus, then any committers can
> > > cherry-pick the commit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 6:08 PM Cong Zhao <zhaocong@apache.org
>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree with this, other PRs can move to 3.0.1.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 09:43:20 Christophe Bornet wrote:
> > > > > > > > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all
those
> > > commits except:
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we
> > > start to
> > > > > > > > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code
> > > freeze
> > > > > > > > > becomes pointless.
> > > > > > > > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those
> > > enhancements.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do we have an agreement on this ?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Christophe
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Le ven. 21 avr. 2023 à 11:36, Cong Zhao <
zhaocong@apache.org
> > >
> > > a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I strongly agree that these cherry-pick should be
notified
> > > to the release managers to avoid unintended consequences.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086 is to
solve
> > > a serious bug it will lead to the pulsar-io block, so it is very
> > necessary
> > > to cherry-pick into 3.0. The rest of the PRs are optimized for large
> > > amounts of data, we also can discuss whether they are necessary to
> > > cherry-pick into 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 07:26:43 Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I believe that currently there's no clear process in
> > place
> > > in order to
> > > > > > > > > > > decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into
the
> > > frozen branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > I know that we have a slack channel for the release
> > > coordination
> > > > > > > > > > > #pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > One solution would be to let the release managers
> > > cherry-pick the commits -
> > > > > > > > > > > they are the contributors more focused on the
stability
> > of
> > > the release
> > > > > > > > > > > branch and they might be able to discuss if it's
> > > worthwhile.
> > > > > > > > > > > Their opinion is not more important than others, but
they
> > > need to know it
> > > > > > > > > > > anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and avoid
> > > unintended
> > > > > > > > > > > consequences.
> > > > > > > > > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff.
> > For
> > > more complex
> > > > > > > > > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a
> > > thread here.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit,
> > > instead of directly
> > > > > > > > > > > going for it without any discussion, they can ask in
the
> > > release slack
> > > > > > > > > > > channel.
> > > > > > > > > > > The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it.
> > > > > > > > > > > If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved
to
> > > the mailing list. I
> > > > > > > > > > > believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that
> > > currently we rely on
> > > > > > > > > > > the common sense of committers.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > Nicolò Boschi
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <
> > > zhaocong@apache.org> ha
> > > > > > > > > > > scritto:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Zike,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed message
> > PRs
> > > to branch-3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since
it
> > > is the new feature
> > > > > > > > > > > > of the delayed message and has no impact on other
> > > components.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix some
> > > problem with the new
> > > > > > > > > > > > delayed message and make this new feature work
better.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Need to cherry-pick PR:
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, all
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We found that there were a lot of commits that
were
> > > cherry-picked to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification
to
> > > reach a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone
> > > were also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the
> > > corresponding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >
> >
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > According to our release policy[0] and the code
> > freeze
> > > notification
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked
into
> > > branch-3.0 will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > require reaching the consensus before
cherry-picking.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to
provide
> > > the context for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0.
> > Then
> > > mark it with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to
reach
> > > a consensus.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the
> > > context for the above
> > > > > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in
> > > Pulsar 3.0?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is still no consensus for the above
commits,
> > > we may need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > revert them before the RC3.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you have any questions or concerns, please do
not
> > > hesitate to let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [0]
> > > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > >
> >
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>.
Il Lun 24 Apr 2023, 12:35 PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> Can we cherry-pick fixes for the new features that were introduced to
> 3.0.0?
> We do lots of chaos testing, stress testing for new delayed messages, and
> load balancer
> before the 3.0.0 release. Is it reasonable to have the fixes without
> releasing buggy
> features?
>
I 100% agree
But RM but be aware and they should do the cherry picks
Enrico
> Or the testing should be completed before the code freeze, otherwise, push
> to the next feature release.
>
> Thanks,
> Penghui
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:08 PM Christophe Bornet <bo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Zike,
> >
> > I just reverted the commits of PIP-195 (minutes before your mail 😄)
> > except for
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > Maybe we should keep that one since it will be a breaking change if we
> > do it later.
> >
> > Le lun. 24 avr. 2023 à 11:52, Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> a écrit :
> > >
> > > Hi, all
> > >
> > > Based on the above discussion, I will revert all these commits. They
> > > are all related to the improvement of the PIP-195:
> > > *
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > *
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > *
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > *
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > *
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > >
> > > This commit has been reverted:
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > >
> > > And we keep these two commits for Pulsar 3.0.0:
> > > *
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > *
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > >
> > > @Nicolò Could you provide more context for this commit:
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > ?
> > > Do we need to include it in Pulsar 3.0.0?
> > >
> > > Please let me know if you have any questions.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Zike Yang
> > > Zike Yang
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 5:23 PM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Michael
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your explanation. I'm +1 for keeping these commits.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Zike Yang
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 12:47 AM Michael Marshall <
> > mmarshall@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those
> > commits except:
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you enumerate which commits you want to revert? 19849 was not
> > > > > cherry picked, so it is not relevant to this discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > I feel strongly that we need to keep the following commits:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/370f6d7af78fa7bd8f92f8116fac4e3cf32adecb
> > > > >
> > > > > Justification: I broke the AuthenticationProviderList with my
> changes
> > > > > from PIP 97. This commit fixes that regression from 2.11.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/b839536cb05a0e1c737d9fb87edae1e054fd301b
> > > > >
> > > > > Justification: this fixes a broken error log to help users quickly
> > > > > identify a Kubernetes bug that users of the OIDC plugin will
> > > > > definitely encounter. I spent at least 4 hours earlier this week
> > > > > tracking down an issue that would have been obvious had the error
> log
> > > > > been correct. The change is very small and easy to understand, and
> > > > > will save users a lot of time.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > >
> > > > > Justification: this is a one line bug fix that is necessary for
> OIDC
> > > > > to work in function pods. It is well understood and covered by a
> > test.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Michael
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 5:27 AM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we start
> > to
> > > > > > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code
> freeze
> > > > > > > becomes pointless.
> > > > > > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those
> > enhancements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Totally +1 for this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more
> > complex
> > > > > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread
> > here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I still recommend discussing the cherry-pick on the mailing list.
> > > > > > For the LTS release, we need to be very careful when
> cherry-picking
> > > > > > the commit. All cherry-picked commits that enter the LTS version
> > > > > > should be noticed for everyone. They should all be considered as
> > > > > > important changes. Another benefit of discussing it in the
> mailing
> > > > > > list is that we can keep the context of the cherry-pick
> > permanently.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As long as we have a consensus, then any committers can
> > cherry-pick the commit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 6:08 PM Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree with this, other PRs can move to 3.0.1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 09:43:20 Christophe Bornet wrote:
> > > > > > > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those
> > commits except:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we
> > start to
> > > > > > > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code
> > freeze
> > > > > > > > becomes pointless.
> > > > > > > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those
> > enhancements.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do we have an agreement on this ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Christophe
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Le ven. 21 avr. 2023 à 11:36, Cong Zhao <zhaocong@apache.org
> >
> > a écrit :
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I strongly agree that these cherry-pick should be notified
> > to the release managers to avoid unintended consequences.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086 is to solve
> > a serious bug it will lead to the pulsar-io block, so it is very
> necessary
> > to cherry-pick into 3.0. The rest of the PRs are optimized for large
> > amounts of data, we also can discuss whether they are necessary to
> > cherry-pick into 3.0.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 07:26:43 Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I believe that currently there's no clear process in
> place
> > in order to
> > > > > > > > > > decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into the
> > frozen branch.
> > > > > > > > > > I know that we have a slack channel for the release
> > coordination
> > > > > > > > > > #pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > One solution would be to let the release managers
> > cherry-pick the commits -
> > > > > > > > > > they are the contributors more focused on the stability
> of
> > the release
> > > > > > > > > > branch and they might be able to discuss if it's
> > worthwhile.
> > > > > > > > > > Their opinion is not more important than others, but they
> > need to know it
> > > > > > > > > > anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and avoid
> > unintended
> > > > > > > > > > consequences.
> > > > > > > > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff.
> For
> > more complex
> > > > > > > > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a
> > thread here.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit,
> > instead of directly
> > > > > > > > > > going for it without any discussion, they can ask in the
> > release slack
> > > > > > > > > > channel.
> > > > > > > > > > The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it.
> > > > > > > > > > If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved to
> > the mailing list. I
> > > > > > > > > > believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that
> > currently we rely on
> > > > > > > > > > the common sense of committers.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > Nicolò Boschi
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <
> > zhaocong@apache.org> ha
> > > > > > > > > > scritto:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Zike,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed message
> PRs
> > to branch-3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since it
> > is the new feature
> > > > > > > > > > > of the delayed message and has no impact on other
> > components.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix some
> > problem with the new
> > > > > > > > > > > delayed message and make this new feature work better.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Need to cherry-pick PR:
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, all
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We found that there were a lot of commits that were
> > cherry-picked to
> > > > > > > > > > > > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to
> > reach a
> > > > > > > > > > > > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone
> > were also
> > > > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the
> > corresponding
> > > > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits:
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > According to our release policy[0] and the code
> freeze
> > notification
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into
> > branch-3.0 will
> > > > > > > > > > > > require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide
> > the context for
> > > > > > > > > > > > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0.
> Then
> > mark it with
> > > > > > > > > > > > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach
> > a consensus.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the
> > context for the above
> > > > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in
> > Pulsar 3.0?
> > > > > > > > > > > > If there is still no consensus for the above commits,
> > we may need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > revert them before the RC3.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you have any questions or concerns, please do not
> > hesitate to let
> > > > > > > > > > > > us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [0]
> > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> >
>
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>.
Can we cherry-pick fixes for the new features that were introduced to 3.0.0?
We do lots of chaos testing, stress testing for new delayed messages, and
load balancer
before the 3.0.0 release. Is it reasonable to have the fixes without
releasing buggy
features?
Or the testing should be completed before the code freeze, otherwise, push
to the next feature release.
Thanks,
Penghui
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:08 PM Christophe Bornet <bo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Zike,
>
> I just reverted the commits of PIP-195 (minutes before your mail 😄)
> except for
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> Maybe we should keep that one since it will be a breaking change if we
> do it later.
>
> Le lun. 24 avr. 2023 à 11:52, Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi, all
> >
> > Based on the above discussion, I will revert all these commits. They
> > are all related to the improvement of the PIP-195:
> > *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> >
> > This commit has been reverted:
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> >
> > And we keep these two commits for Pulsar 3.0.0:
> > *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> >
> > @Nicolò Could you provide more context for this commit:
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> ?
> > Do we need to include it in Pulsar 3.0.0?
> >
> > Please let me know if you have any questions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Zike Yang
> > Zike Yang
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 5:23 PM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Michael
> > >
> > > Thanks for your explanation. I'm +1 for keeping these commits.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Zike Yang
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 12:47 AM Michael Marshall <
> mmarshall@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those
> commits except:
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > >
> > > > Can you enumerate which commits you want to revert? 19849 was not
> > > > cherry picked, so it is not relevant to this discussion.
> > > >
> > > > I feel strongly that we need to keep the following commits:
> > > >
> > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/370f6d7af78fa7bd8f92f8116fac4e3cf32adecb
> > > >
> > > > Justification: I broke the AuthenticationProviderList with my changes
> > > > from PIP 97. This commit fixes that regression from 2.11.
> > > >
> > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/b839536cb05a0e1c737d9fb87edae1e054fd301b
> > > >
> > > > Justification: this fixes a broken error log to help users quickly
> > > > identify a Kubernetes bug that users of the OIDC plugin will
> > > > definitely encounter. I spent at least 4 hours earlier this week
> > > > tracking down an issue that would have been obvious had the error log
> > > > been correct. The change is very small and easy to understand, and
> > > > will save users a lot of time.
> > > >
> > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > >
> > > > Justification: this is a one line bug fix that is necessary for OIDC
> > > > to work in function pods. It is well understood and covered by a
> test.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 5:27 AM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we start
> to
> > > > > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code freeze
> > > > > > becomes pointless.
> > > > > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those
> enhancements.
> > > > >
> > > > > Totally +1 for this.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more
> complex
> > > > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread
> here.
> > > > >
> > > > > I still recommend discussing the cherry-pick on the mailing list.
> > > > > For the LTS release, we need to be very careful when cherry-picking
> > > > > the commit. All cherry-picked commits that enter the LTS version
> > > > > should be noticed for everyone. They should all be considered as
> > > > > important changes. Another benefit of discussing it in the mailing
> > > > > list is that we can keep the context of the cherry-pick
> permanently.
> > > > >
> > > > > As long as we have a consensus, then any committers can
> cherry-pick the commit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 6:08 PM Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree with this, other PRs can move to 3.0.1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2023/04/21 09:43:20 Christophe Bornet wrote:
> > > > > > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those
> commits except:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we
> start to
> > > > > > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code
> freeze
> > > > > > > becomes pointless.
> > > > > > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those
> enhancements.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do we have an agreement on this ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Christophe
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Le ven. 21 avr. 2023 à 11:36, Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org>
> a écrit :
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I strongly agree that these cherry-pick should be notified
> to the release managers to avoid unintended consequences.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086 is to solve
> a serious bug it will lead to the pulsar-io block, so it is very necessary
> to cherry-pick into 3.0. The rest of the PRs are optimized for large
> amounts of data, we also can discuss whether they are necessary to
> cherry-pick into 3.0.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 07:26:43 Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I believe that currently there's no clear process in place
> in order to
> > > > > > > > > decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into the
> frozen branch.
> > > > > > > > > I know that we have a slack channel for the release
> coordination
> > > > > > > > > #pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > One solution would be to let the release managers
> cherry-pick the commits -
> > > > > > > > > they are the contributors more focused on the stability of
> the release
> > > > > > > > > branch and they might be able to discuss if it's
> worthwhile.
> > > > > > > > > Their opinion is not more important than others, but they
> need to know it
> > > > > > > > > anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and avoid
> unintended
> > > > > > > > > consequences.
> > > > > > > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For
> more complex
> > > > > > > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a
> thread here.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit,
> instead of directly
> > > > > > > > > going for it without any discussion, they can ask in the
> release slack
> > > > > > > > > channel.
> > > > > > > > > The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it.
> > > > > > > > > If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved to
> the mailing list. I
> > > > > > > > > believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that
> currently we rely on
> > > > > > > > > the common sense of committers.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > Nicolò Boschi
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <
> zhaocong@apache.org> ha
> > > > > > > > > scritto:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Zike,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed message PRs
> to branch-3.0.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since it
> is the new feature
> > > > > > > > > > of the delayed message and has no impact on other
> components.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix some
> problem with the new
> > > > > > > > > > delayed message and make this new feature work better.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Need to cherry-pick PR:
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi, all
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We found that there were a lot of commits that were
> cherry-picked to
> > > > > > > > > > > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to
> reach a
> > > > > > > > > > > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone
> were also
> > > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the
> corresponding
> > > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits:
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > According to our release policy[0] and the code freeze
> notification
> > > > > > > > > > > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into
> branch-3.0 will
> > > > > > > > > > > require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking.
> > > > > > > > > > > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide
> the context for
> > > > > > > > > > > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Then
> mark it with
> > > > > > > > > > > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach
> a consensus.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the
> context for the above
> > > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in
> Pulsar 3.0?
> > > > > > > > > > > If there is still no consensus for the above commits,
> we may need to
> > > > > > > > > > > revert them before the RC3.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you have any questions or concerns, please do not
> hesitate to let
> > > > > > > > > > > us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [0]
> https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
>
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by Christophe Bornet <bo...@gmail.com>.
Hi Zike,
I just reverted the commits of PIP-195 (minutes before your mail 😄)
except for https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
Maybe we should keep that one since it will be a breaking change if we
do it later.
Le lun. 24 avr. 2023 à 11:52, Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> a écrit :
>
> Hi, all
>
> Based on the above discussion, I will revert all these commits. They
> are all related to the improvement of the PIP-195:
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
>
> This commit has been reverted:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
>
> And we keep these two commits for Pulsar 3.0.0:
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
>
> @Nicolò Could you provide more context for this commit:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd?
> Do we need to include it in Pulsar 3.0.0?
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
> Thanks,
> Zike Yang
> Zike Yang
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 5:23 PM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Michael
> >
> > Thanks for your explanation. I'm +1 for keeping these commits.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Zike Yang
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 12:47 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those commits except:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > >
> > > Can you enumerate which commits you want to revert? 19849 was not
> > > cherry picked, so it is not relevant to this discussion.
> > >
> > > I feel strongly that we need to keep the following commits:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/370f6d7af78fa7bd8f92f8116fac4e3cf32adecb
> > >
> > > Justification: I broke the AuthenticationProviderList with my changes
> > > from PIP 97. This commit fixes that regression from 2.11.
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/b839536cb05a0e1c737d9fb87edae1e054fd301b
> > >
> > > Justification: this fixes a broken error log to help users quickly
> > > identify a Kubernetes bug that users of the OIDC plugin will
> > > definitely encounter. I spent at least 4 hours earlier this week
> > > tracking down an issue that would have been obvious had the error log
> > > been correct. The change is very small and easy to understand, and
> > > will save users a lot of time.
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > >
> > > Justification: this is a one line bug fix that is necessary for OIDC
> > > to work in function pods. It is well understood and covered by a test.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 5:27 AM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we start to
> > > > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code freeze
> > > > > becomes pointless.
> > > > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those enhancements.
> > > >
> > > > Totally +1 for this.
> > > >
> > > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more complex
> > > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here.
> > > >
> > > > I still recommend discussing the cherry-pick on the mailing list.
> > > > For the LTS release, we need to be very careful when cherry-picking
> > > > the commit. All cherry-picked commits that enter the LTS version
> > > > should be noticed for everyone. They should all be considered as
> > > > important changes. Another benefit of discussing it in the mailing
> > > > list is that we can keep the context of the cherry-pick permanently.
> > > >
> > > > As long as we have a consensus, then any committers can cherry-pick the commit.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Zike Yang
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 6:08 PM Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with this, other PRs can move to 3.0.1.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2023/04/21 09:43:20 Christophe Bornet wrote:
> > > > > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those commits except:
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we start to
> > > > > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code freeze
> > > > > > becomes pointless.
> > > > > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those enhancements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do we have an agreement on this ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Christophe
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Le ven. 21 avr. 2023 à 11:36, Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> a écrit :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I strongly agree that these cherry-pick should be notified to the release managers to avoid unintended consequences.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086 is to solve a serious bug it will lead to the pulsar-io block, so it is very necessary to cherry-pick into 3.0. The rest of the PRs are optimized for large amounts of data, we also can discuss whether they are necessary to cherry-pick into 3.0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 07:26:43 Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> > > > > > > > I believe that currently there's no clear process in place in order to
> > > > > > > > decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into the frozen branch.
> > > > > > > > I know that we have a slack channel for the release coordination
> > > > > > > > #pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One solution would be to let the release managers cherry-pick the commits -
> > > > > > > > they are the contributors more focused on the stability of the release
> > > > > > > > branch and they might be able to discuss if it's worthwhile.
> > > > > > > > Their opinion is not more important than others, but they need to know it
> > > > > > > > anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and avoid unintended
> > > > > > > > consequences.
> > > > > > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more complex
> > > > > > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit, instead of directly
> > > > > > > > going for it without any discussion, they can ask in the release slack
> > > > > > > > channel.
> > > > > > > > The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it.
> > > > > > > > If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved to the mailing list. I
> > > > > > > > believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that currently we rely on
> > > > > > > > the common sense of committers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > Nicolò Boschi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> ha
> > > > > > > > scritto:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Zike,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed message PRs to branch-3.0.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since it is the new feature
> > > > > > > > > of the delayed message and has no impact on other components.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix some problem with the new
> > > > > > > > > delayed message and make this new feature work better.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Need to cherry-pick PR:
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi, all
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We found that there were a lot of commits that were cherry-picked to
> > > > > > > > > > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to reach a
> > > > > > > > > > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone were also
> > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the corresponding
> > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits:
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > According to our release policy[0] and the code freeze notification
> > > > > > > > > > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0 will
> > > > > > > > > > require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking.
> > > > > > > > > > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide the context for
> > > > > > > > > > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Then mark it with
> > > > > > > > > > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach a consensus.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the context for the above
> > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in Pulsar 3.0?
> > > > > > > > > > If there is still no consensus for the above commits, we may need to
> > > > > > > > > > revert them before the RC3.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let
> > > > > > > > > > us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [0] https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> > > > > > > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com>.
We can revert it, thanks
Il giorno lun 24 apr 2023 alle 11:52 Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> Hi, all
>
> Based on the above discussion, I will revert all these commits. They
> are all related to the improvement of the PIP-195:
> *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
>
> This commit has been reverted:
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
>
> And we keep these two commits for Pulsar 3.0.0:
> *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
>
> @Nicolò Could you provide more context for this commit:
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> ?
> Do we need to include it in Pulsar 3.0.0?
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
> Thanks,
> Zike Yang
> Zike Yang
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 5:23 PM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Michael
> >
> > Thanks for your explanation. I'm +1 for keeping these commits.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Zike Yang
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 12:47 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those commits
> except:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > >
> > > Can you enumerate which commits you want to revert? 19849 was not
> > > cherry picked, so it is not relevant to this discussion.
> > >
> > > I feel strongly that we need to keep the following commits:
> > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/370f6d7af78fa7bd8f92f8116fac4e3cf32adecb
> > >
> > > Justification: I broke the AuthenticationProviderList with my changes
> > > from PIP 97. This commit fixes that regression from 2.11.
> > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/b839536cb05a0e1c737d9fb87edae1e054fd301b
> > >
> > > Justification: this fixes a broken error log to help users quickly
> > > identify a Kubernetes bug that users of the OIDC plugin will
> > > definitely encounter. I spent at least 4 hours earlier this week
> > > tracking down an issue that would have been obvious had the error log
> > > been correct. The change is very small and easy to understand, and
> > > will save users a lot of time.
> > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > >
> > > Justification: this is a one line bug fix that is necessary for OIDC
> > > to work in function pods. It is well understood and covered by a test.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 5:27 AM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we start to
> > > > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code freeze
> > > > > becomes pointless.
> > > > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those enhancements.
> > > >
> > > > Totally +1 for this.
> > > >
> > > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more
> complex
> > > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here.
> > > >
> > > > I still recommend discussing the cherry-pick on the mailing list.
> > > > For the LTS release, we need to be very careful when cherry-picking
> > > > the commit. All cherry-picked commits that enter the LTS version
> > > > should be noticed for everyone. They should all be considered as
> > > > important changes. Another benefit of discussing it in the mailing
> > > > list is that we can keep the context of the cherry-pick permanently.
> > > >
> > > > As long as we have a consensus, then any committers can cherry-pick
> the commit.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Zike Yang
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 6:08 PM Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with this, other PRs can move to 3.0.1.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2023/04/21 09:43:20 Christophe Bornet wrote:
> > > > > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those
> commits except:
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we start
> to
> > > > > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code freeze
> > > > > > becomes pointless.
> > > > > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those
> enhancements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do we have an agreement on this ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Christophe
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Le ven. 21 avr. 2023 à 11:36, Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> a
> écrit :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I strongly agree that these cherry-pick should be notified to
> the release managers to avoid unintended consequences.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086 is to solve a
> serious bug it will lead to the pulsar-io block, so it is very necessary to
> cherry-pick into 3.0. The rest of the PRs are optimized for large amounts
> of data, we also can discuss whether they are necessary to cherry-pick into
> 3.0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 07:26:43 Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> > > > > > > > I believe that currently there's no clear process in place
> in order to
> > > > > > > > decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into the
> frozen branch.
> > > > > > > > I know that we have a slack channel for the release
> coordination
> > > > > > > > #pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One solution would be to let the release managers
> cherry-pick the commits -
> > > > > > > > they are the contributors more focused on the stability of
> the release
> > > > > > > > branch and they might be able to discuss if it's worthwhile.
> > > > > > > > Their opinion is not more important than others, but they
> need to know it
> > > > > > > > anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and avoid
> unintended
> > > > > > > > consequences.
> > > > > > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For
> more complex
> > > > > > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a
> thread here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit, instead
> of directly
> > > > > > > > going for it without any discussion, they can ask in the
> release slack
> > > > > > > > channel.
> > > > > > > > The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it.
> > > > > > > > If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved to the
> mailing list. I
> > > > > > > > believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that
> currently we rely on
> > > > > > > > the common sense of committers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > Nicolò Boschi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <
> zhaocong@apache.org> ha
> > > > > > > > scritto:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Zike,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed message PRs
> to branch-3.0.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since it is
> the new feature
> > > > > > > > > of the delayed message and has no impact on other
> components.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix some
> problem with the new
> > > > > > > > > delayed message and make this new feature work better.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Need to cherry-pick PR:
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi, all
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We found that there were a lot of commits that were
> cherry-picked to
> > > > > > > > > > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to
> reach a
> > > > > > > > > > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone were
> also
> > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the corresponding
> > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits:
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > According to our release policy[0] and the code freeze
> notification
> > > > > > > > > > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into
> branch-3.0 will
> > > > > > > > > > require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking.
> > > > > > > > > > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide the
> context for
> > > > > > > > > > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Then
> mark it with
> > > > > > > > > > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach a
> consensus.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the context
> for the above
> > > > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in Pulsar
> 3.0?
> > > > > > > > > > If there is still no consensus for the above commits, we
> may need to
> > > > > > > > > > revert them before the RC3.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you have any questions or concerns, please do not
> hesitate to let
> > > > > > > > > > us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [0]
> https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> > > > > > > > > > [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
>
--
Nicolò Boschi
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org>.
Hi, all
Based on the above discussion, I will revert all these commits. They
are all related to the improvement of the PIP-195:
* https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
* https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
* https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
* https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
* https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
This commit has been reverted:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
And we keep these two commits for Pulsar 3.0.0:
* https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
* https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
@Nicolò Could you provide more context for this commit:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd?
Do we need to include it in Pulsar 3.0.0?
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Zike Yang
Zike Yang
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 5:23 PM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi, Michael
>
> Thanks for your explanation. I'm +1 for keeping these commits.
>
> Thanks,
> Zike Yang
>
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 12:47 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those commits except:
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> >
> > Can you enumerate which commits you want to revert? 19849 was not
> > cherry picked, so it is not relevant to this discussion.
> >
> > I feel strongly that we need to keep the following commits:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/370f6d7af78fa7bd8f92f8116fac4e3cf32adecb
> >
> > Justification: I broke the AuthenticationProviderList with my changes
> > from PIP 97. This commit fixes that regression from 2.11.
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/b839536cb05a0e1c737d9fb87edae1e054fd301b
> >
> > Justification: this fixes a broken error log to help users quickly
> > identify a Kubernetes bug that users of the OIDC plugin will
> > definitely encounter. I spent at least 4 hours earlier this week
> > tracking down an issue that would have been obvious had the error log
> > been correct. The change is very small and easy to understand, and
> > will save users a lot of time.
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> >
> > Justification: this is a one line bug fix that is necessary for OIDC
> > to work in function pods. It is well understood and covered by a test.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 5:27 AM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we start to
> > > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code freeze
> > > > becomes pointless.
> > > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those enhancements.
> > >
> > > Totally +1 for this.
> > >
> > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more complex
> > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here.
> > >
> > > I still recommend discussing the cherry-pick on the mailing list.
> > > For the LTS release, we need to be very careful when cherry-picking
> > > the commit. All cherry-picked commits that enter the LTS version
> > > should be noticed for everyone. They should all be considered as
> > > important changes. Another benefit of discussing it in the mailing
> > > list is that we can keep the context of the cherry-pick permanently.
> > >
> > > As long as we have a consensus, then any committers can cherry-pick the commit.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Zike Yang
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 6:08 PM Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree with this, other PRs can move to 3.0.1.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Cong Zhao
> > > >
> > > > On 2023/04/21 09:43:20 Christophe Bornet wrote:
> > > > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those commits except:
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we start to
> > > > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code freeze
> > > > > becomes pointless.
> > > > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those enhancements.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do we have an agreement on this ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Christophe
> > > > >
> > > > > Le ven. 21 avr. 2023 à 11:36, Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> a écrit :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I strongly agree that these cherry-pick should be notified to the release managers to avoid unintended consequences.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086 is to solve a serious bug it will lead to the pulsar-io block, so it is very necessary to cherry-pick into 3.0. The rest of the PRs are optimized for large amounts of data, we also can discuss whether they are necessary to cherry-pick into 3.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2023/04/21 07:26:43 Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> > > > > > > I believe that currently there's no clear process in place in order to
> > > > > > > decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into the frozen branch.
> > > > > > > I know that we have a slack channel for the release coordination
> > > > > > > #pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One solution would be to let the release managers cherry-pick the commits -
> > > > > > > they are the contributors more focused on the stability of the release
> > > > > > > branch and they might be able to discuss if it's worthwhile.
> > > > > > > Their opinion is not more important than others, but they need to know it
> > > > > > > anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and avoid unintended
> > > > > > > consequences.
> > > > > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more complex
> > > > > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit, instead of directly
> > > > > > > going for it without any discussion, they can ask in the release slack
> > > > > > > channel.
> > > > > > > The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it.
> > > > > > > If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved to the mailing list. I
> > > > > > > believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that currently we rely on
> > > > > > > the common sense of committers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > Nicolò Boschi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> ha
> > > > > > > scritto:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Zike,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed message PRs to branch-3.0.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since it is the new feature
> > > > > > > > of the delayed message and has no impact on other components.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix some problem with the new
> > > > > > > > delayed message and make this new feature work better.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Need to cherry-pick PR:
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi, all
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We found that there were a lot of commits that were cherry-picked to
> > > > > > > > > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to reach a
> > > > > > > > > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone were also
> > > > > > > > > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the corresponding
> > > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits:
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > According to our release policy[0] and the code freeze notification
> > > > > > > > > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0 will
> > > > > > > > > require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking.
> > > > > > > > > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide the context for
> > > > > > > > > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Then mark it with
> > > > > > > > > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach a consensus.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the context for the above
> > > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in Pulsar 3.0?
> > > > > > > > > If there is still no consensus for the above commits, we may need to
> > > > > > > > > revert them before the RC3.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let
> > > > > > > > > us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [0] https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org>.
Hi, Michael
Thanks for your explanation. I'm +1 for keeping these commits.
Thanks,
Zike Yang
On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 12:47 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those commits except:
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
>
> Can you enumerate which commits you want to revert? 19849 was not
> cherry picked, so it is not relevant to this discussion.
>
> I feel strongly that we need to keep the following commits:
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/370f6d7af78fa7bd8f92f8116fac4e3cf32adecb
>
> Justification: I broke the AuthenticationProviderList with my changes
> from PIP 97. This commit fixes that regression from 2.11.
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/b839536cb05a0e1c737d9fb87edae1e054fd301b
>
> Justification: this fixes a broken error log to help users quickly
> identify a Kubernetes bug that users of the OIDC plugin will
> definitely encounter. I spent at least 4 hours earlier this week
> tracking down an issue that would have been obvious had the error log
> been correct. The change is very small and easy to understand, and
> will save users a lot of time.
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
>
> Justification: this is a one line bug fix that is necessary for OIDC
> to work in function pods. It is well understood and covered by a test.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 5:27 AM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we start to
> > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code freeze
> > > becomes pointless.
> > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those enhancements.
> >
> > Totally +1 for this.
> >
> > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more complex
> > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here.
> >
> > I still recommend discussing the cherry-pick on the mailing list.
> > For the LTS release, we need to be very careful when cherry-picking
> > the commit. All cherry-picked commits that enter the LTS version
> > should be noticed for everyone. They should all be considered as
> > important changes. Another benefit of discussing it in the mailing
> > list is that we can keep the context of the cherry-pick permanently.
> >
> > As long as we have a consensus, then any committers can cherry-pick the commit.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Zike Yang
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 6:08 PM Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree with this, other PRs can move to 3.0.1.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Cong Zhao
> > >
> > > On 2023/04/21 09:43:20 Christophe Bornet wrote:
> > > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those commits except:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > >
> > > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we start to
> > > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code freeze
> > > > becomes pointless.
> > > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those enhancements.
> > > >
> > > > Do we have an agreement on this ?
> > > >
> > > > Christophe
> > > >
> > > > Le ven. 21 avr. 2023 à 11:36, Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> a écrit :
> > > > >
> > > > > I strongly agree that these cherry-pick should be notified to the release managers to avoid unintended consequences.
> > > > >
> > > > > PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086 is to solve a serious bug it will lead to the pulsar-io block, so it is very necessary to cherry-pick into 3.0. The rest of the PRs are optimized for large amounts of data, we also can discuss whether they are necessary to cherry-pick into 3.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2023/04/21 07:26:43 Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> > > > > > I believe that currently there's no clear process in place in order to
> > > > > > decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into the frozen branch.
> > > > > > I know that we have a slack channel for the release coordination
> > > > > > #pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One solution would be to let the release managers cherry-pick the commits -
> > > > > > they are the contributors more focused on the stability of the release
> > > > > > branch and they might be able to discuss if it's worthwhile.
> > > > > > Their opinion is not more important than others, but they need to know it
> > > > > > anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and avoid unintended
> > > > > > consequences.
> > > > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more complex
> > > > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit, instead of directly
> > > > > > going for it without any discussion, they can ask in the release slack
> > > > > > channel.
> > > > > > The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it.
> > > > > > If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved to the mailing list. I
> > > > > > believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that currently we rely on
> > > > > > the common sense of committers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > Nicolò Boschi
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> ha
> > > > > > scritto:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Zike,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed message PRs to branch-3.0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since it is the new feature
> > > > > > > of the delayed message and has no impact on other components.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix some problem with the new
> > > > > > > delayed message and make this new feature work better.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Need to cherry-pick PR:
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi, all
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We found that there were a lot of commits that were cherry-picked to
> > > > > > > > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to reach a
> > > > > > > > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone were also
> > > > > > > > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the corresponding
> > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits:
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > According to our release policy[0] and the code freeze notification
> > > > > > > > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0 will
> > > > > > > > require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking.
> > > > > > > > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide the context for
> > > > > > > > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Then mark it with
> > > > > > > > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach a consensus.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the context for the above
> > > > > > > > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in Pulsar 3.0?
> > > > > > > > If there is still no consensus for the above commits, we may need to
> > > > > > > > revert them before the RC3.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let
> > > > > > > > us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [0] https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> > > > > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>.
> So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those commits except:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
Can you enumerate which commits you want to revert? 19849 was not
cherry picked, so it is not relevant to this discussion.
I feel strongly that we need to keep the following commits:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/370f6d7af78fa7bd8f92f8116fac4e3cf32adecb
Justification: I broke the AuthenticationProviderList with my changes
from PIP 97. This commit fixes that regression from 2.11.
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/b839536cb05a0e1c737d9fb87edae1e054fd301b
Justification: this fixes a broken error log to help users quickly
identify a Kubernetes bug that users of the OIDC plugin will
definitely encounter. I spent at least 4 hours earlier this week
tracking down an issue that would have been obvious had the error log
been correct. The change is very small and easy to understand, and
will save users a lot of time.
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
Justification: this is a one line bug fix that is necessary for OIDC
to work in function pods. It is well understood and covered by a test.
Thanks,
Michael
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 5:27 AM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we start to
> > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code freeze
> > becomes pointless.
> > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those enhancements.
>
> Totally +1 for this.
>
> > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more complex
> > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here.
>
> I still recommend discussing the cherry-pick on the mailing list.
> For the LTS release, we need to be very careful when cherry-picking
> the commit. All cherry-picked commits that enter the LTS version
> should be noticed for everyone. They should all be considered as
> important changes. Another benefit of discussing it in the mailing
> list is that we can keep the context of the cherry-pick permanently.
>
> As long as we have a consensus, then any committers can cherry-pick the commit.
>
> Thanks,
> Zike Yang
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 6:08 PM Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with this, other PRs can move to 3.0.1.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cong Zhao
> >
> > On 2023/04/21 09:43:20 Christophe Bornet wrote:
> > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those commits except:
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > >
> > > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we start to
> > > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code freeze
> > > becomes pointless.
> > > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those enhancements.
> > >
> > > Do we have an agreement on this ?
> > >
> > > Christophe
> > >
> > > Le ven. 21 avr. 2023 à 11:36, Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > I strongly agree that these cherry-pick should be notified to the release managers to avoid unintended consequences.
> > > >
> > > > PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086 is to solve a serious bug it will lead to the pulsar-io block, so it is very necessary to cherry-pick into 3.0. The rest of the PRs are optimized for large amounts of data, we also can discuss whether they are necessary to cherry-pick into 3.0.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Cong Zhao
> > > >
> > > > On 2023/04/21 07:26:43 Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> > > > > I believe that currently there's no clear process in place in order to
> > > > > decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into the frozen branch.
> > > > > I know that we have a slack channel for the release coordination
> > > > > #pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone.
> > > > >
> > > > > One solution would be to let the release managers cherry-pick the commits -
> > > > > they are the contributors more focused on the stability of the release
> > > > > branch and they might be able to discuss if it's worthwhile.
> > > > > Their opinion is not more important than others, but they need to know it
> > > > > anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and avoid unintended
> > > > > consequences.
> > > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more complex
> > > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here.
> > > > >
> > > > > When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit, instead of directly
> > > > > going for it without any discussion, they can ask in the release slack
> > > > > channel.
> > > > > The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it.
> > > > > If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved to the mailing list. I
> > > > > believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that currently we rely on
> > > > > the common sense of committers.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > Nicolò Boschi
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> ha
> > > > > scritto:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Zike,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed message PRs to branch-3.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since it is the new feature
> > > > > > of the delayed message and has no impact on other components.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix some problem with the new
> > > > > > delayed message and make this new feature work better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Need to cherry-pick PR:
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi, all
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We found that there were a lot of commits that were cherry-picked to
> > > > > > > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to reach a
> > > > > > > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone were also
> > > > > > > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the corresponding
> > > > > > > cherry-picked commits:
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > According to our release policy[0] and the code freeze notification
> > > > > > > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0 will
> > > > > > > require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking.
> > > > > > > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide the context for
> > > > > > > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Then mark it with
> > > > > > > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach a consensus.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the context for the above
> > > > > > > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in Pulsar 3.0?
> > > > > > > If there is still no consensus for the above commits, we may need to
> > > > > > > revert them before the RC3.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let
> > > > > > > us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [0] https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> > > > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org>.
> I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we start to
> accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code freeze
> becomes pointless.
> We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those enhancements.
Totally +1 for this.
> The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more complex
> discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here.
I still recommend discussing the cherry-pick on the mailing list.
For the LTS release, we need to be very careful when cherry-picking
the commit. All cherry-picked commits that enter the LTS version
should be noticed for everyone. They should all be considered as
important changes. Another benefit of discussing it in the mailing
list is that we can keep the context of the cherry-pick permanently.
As long as we have a consensus, then any committers can cherry-pick the commit.
Thanks,
Zike Yang
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 6:08 PM Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I agree with this, other PRs can move to 3.0.1.
>
> Thanks,
> Cong Zhao
>
> On 2023/04/21 09:43:20 Christophe Bornet wrote:
> > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those commits except:
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> >
> > I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we start to
> > accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code freeze
> > becomes pointless.
> > We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those enhancements.
> >
> > Do we have an agreement on this ?
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> > Le ven. 21 avr. 2023 à 11:36, Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> a écrit :
> > >
> > > I strongly agree that these cherry-pick should be notified to the release managers to avoid unintended consequences.
> > >
> > > PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086 is to solve a serious bug it will lead to the pulsar-io block, so it is very necessary to cherry-pick into 3.0. The rest of the PRs are optimized for large amounts of data, we also can discuss whether they are necessary to cherry-pick into 3.0.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Cong Zhao
> > >
> > > On 2023/04/21 07:26:43 Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> > > > I believe that currently there's no clear process in place in order to
> > > > decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into the frozen branch.
> > > > I know that we have a slack channel for the release coordination
> > > > #pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone.
> > > >
> > > > One solution would be to let the release managers cherry-pick the commits -
> > > > they are the contributors more focused on the stability of the release
> > > > branch and they might be able to discuss if it's worthwhile.
> > > > Their opinion is not more important than others, but they need to know it
> > > > anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and avoid unintended
> > > > consequences.
> > > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more complex
> > > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here.
> > > >
> > > > When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit, instead of directly
> > > > going for it without any discussion, they can ask in the release slack
> > > > channel.
> > > > The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it.
> > > > If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved to the mailing list. I
> > > > believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that currently we rely on
> > > > the common sense of committers.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > > Nicolò Boschi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> ha
> > > > scritto:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Zike,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed message PRs to branch-3.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since it is the new feature
> > > > > of the delayed message and has no impact on other components.
> > > > >
> > > > > These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix some problem with the new
> > > > > delayed message and make this new feature work better.
> > > > >
> > > > > Need to cherry-pick PR:
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Cong Zhao
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> > > > > > Hi, all
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We found that there were a lot of commits that were cherry-picked to
> > > > > > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to reach a
> > > > > > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone were also
> > > > > > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the corresponding
> > > > > > cherry-picked commits:
> > > > > > *
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > > > > *
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > > > *
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > > > > *
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > > > > *
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > > > > *
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > > > > *
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > > > > *
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > > > *
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > > > > >
> > > > > > According to our release policy[0] and the code freeze notification
> > > > > > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0 will
> > > > > > require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking.
> > > > > > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide the context for
> > > > > > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Then mark it with
> > > > > > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach a consensus.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the context for the above
> > > > > > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in Pulsar 3.0?
> > > > > > If there is still no consensus for the above commits, we may need to
> > > > > > revert them before the RC3.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let
> > > > > > us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [0] https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> > > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org>.
I agree with this, other PRs can move to 3.0.1.
Thanks,
Cong Zhao
On 2023/04/21 09:43:20 Christophe Bornet wrote:
> So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those commits except:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
>
> I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we start to
> accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code freeze
> becomes pointless.
> We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those enhancements.
>
> Do we have an agreement on this ?
>
> Christophe
>
> Le ven. 21 avr. 2023 à 11:36, Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> a écrit :
> >
> > I strongly agree that these cherry-pick should be notified to the release managers to avoid unintended consequences.
> >
> > PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086 is to solve a serious bug it will lead to the pulsar-io block, so it is very necessary to cherry-pick into 3.0. The rest of the PRs are optimized for large amounts of data, we also can discuss whether they are necessary to cherry-pick into 3.0.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cong Zhao
> >
> > On 2023/04/21 07:26:43 Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> > > I believe that currently there's no clear process in place in order to
> > > decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into the frozen branch.
> > > I know that we have a slack channel for the release coordination
> > > #pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone.
> > >
> > > One solution would be to let the release managers cherry-pick the commits -
> > > they are the contributors more focused on the stability of the release
> > > branch and they might be able to discuss if it's worthwhile.
> > > Their opinion is not more important than others, but they need to know it
> > > anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and avoid unintended
> > > consequences.
> > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more complex
> > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here.
> > >
> > > When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit, instead of directly
> > > going for it without any discussion, they can ask in the release slack
> > > channel.
> > > The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it.
> > > If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved to the mailing list. I
> > > believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that currently we rely on
> > > the common sense of committers.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > > Nicolò Boschi
> > >
> > >
> > > Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> ha
> > > scritto:
> > >
> > > > Hi Zike,
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed message PRs to branch-3.0.
> > > >
> > > > Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since it is the new feature
> > > > of the delayed message and has no impact on other components.
> > > >
> > > > These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix some problem with the new
> > > > delayed message and make this new feature work better.
> > > >
> > > > Need to cherry-pick PR:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Cong Zhao
> > > >
> > > > On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> > > > > Hi, all
> > > > >
> > > > > We found that there were a lot of commits that were cherry-picked to
> > > > > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to reach a
> > > > > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone were also
> > > > > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the corresponding
> > > > > cherry-picked commits:
> > > > > *
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > > > *
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > > *
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > > > *
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > > > *
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > > > *
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > > > *
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > > > *
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > > *
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > > > >
> > > > > According to our release policy[0] and the code freeze notification
> > > > > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0 will
> > > > > require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking.
> > > > > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide the context for
> > > > > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Then mark it with
> > > > > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach a consensus.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the context for the above
> > > > > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in Pulsar 3.0?
> > > > > If there is still no consensus for the above commits, we may need to
> > > > > revert them before the RC3.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let
> > > > > us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
> > > > >
> > > > > [0] https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Zike Yang
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by Christophe Bornet <bo...@gmail.com>.
So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those commits except:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we start to
accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code freeze
becomes pointless.
We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those enhancements.
Do we have an agreement on this ?
Christophe
Le ven. 21 avr. 2023 à 11:36, Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> a écrit :
>
> I strongly agree that these cherry-pick should be notified to the release managers to avoid unintended consequences.
>
> PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086 is to solve a serious bug it will lead to the pulsar-io block, so it is very necessary to cherry-pick into 3.0. The rest of the PRs are optimized for large amounts of data, we also can discuss whether they are necessary to cherry-pick into 3.0.
>
> Thanks,
> Cong Zhao
>
> On 2023/04/21 07:26:43 Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> > I believe that currently there's no clear process in place in order to
> > decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into the frozen branch.
> > I know that we have a slack channel for the release coordination
> > #pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone.
> >
> > One solution would be to let the release managers cherry-pick the commits -
> > they are the contributors more focused on the stability of the release
> > branch and they might be able to discuss if it's worthwhile.
> > Their opinion is not more important than others, but they need to know it
> > anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and avoid unintended
> > consequences.
> > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more complex
> > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here.
> >
> > When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit, instead of directly
> > going for it without any discussion, they can ask in the release slack
> > channel.
> > The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it.
> > If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved to the mailing list. I
> > believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that currently we rely on
> > the common sense of committers.
> >
> > What do you think?
> > Nicolò Boschi
> >
> >
> > Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > > Hi Zike,
> > >
> > > I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed message PRs to branch-3.0.
> > >
> > > Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since it is the new feature
> > > of the delayed message and has no impact on other components.
> > >
> > > These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix some problem with the new
> > > delayed message and make this new feature work better.
> > >
> > > Need to cherry-pick PR:
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Cong Zhao
> > >
> > > On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> > > > Hi, all
> > > >
> > > > We found that there were a lot of commits that were cherry-picked to
> > > > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to reach a
> > > > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone were also
> > > > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the corresponding
> > > > cherry-picked commits:
> > > > *
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > > *
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > *
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > > *
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > > *
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > > *
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > > *
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > > *
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > *
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > > >
> > > > According to our release policy[0] and the code freeze notification
> > > > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0 will
> > > > require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking.
> > > > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide the context for
> > > > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Then mark it with
> > > > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach a consensus.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the context for the above
> > > > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in Pulsar 3.0?
> > > > If there is still no consensus for the above commits, we may need to
> > > > revert them before the RC3.
> > > >
> > > > If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let
> > > > us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
> > > >
> > > > [0] https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Zike Yang
> > > >
> > >
> >
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org>.
I strongly agree that these cherry-pick should be notified to the release managers to avoid unintended consequences.
PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086 is to solve a serious bug it will lead to the pulsar-io block, so it is very necessary to cherry-pick into 3.0. The rest of the PRs are optimized for large amounts of data, we also can discuss whether they are necessary to cherry-pick into 3.0.
Thanks,
Cong Zhao
On 2023/04/21 07:26:43 Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> I believe that currently there's no clear process in place in order to
> decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into the frozen branch.
> I know that we have a slack channel for the release coordination
> #pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone.
>
> One solution would be to let the release managers cherry-pick the commits -
> they are the contributors more focused on the stability of the release
> branch and they might be able to discuss if it's worthwhile.
> Their opinion is not more important than others, but they need to know it
> anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and avoid unintended
> consequences.
> The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more complex
> discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here.
>
> When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit, instead of directly
> going for it without any discussion, they can ask in the release slack
> channel.
> The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it.
> If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved to the mailing list. I
> believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that currently we rely on
> the common sense of committers.
>
> What do you think?
> Nicolò Boschi
>
>
> Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> ha
> scritto:
>
> > Hi Zike,
> >
> > I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed message PRs to branch-3.0.
> >
> > Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since it is the new feature
> > of the delayed message and has no impact on other components.
> >
> > These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix some problem with the new
> > delayed message and make this new feature work better.
> >
> > Need to cherry-pick PR:
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cong Zhao
> >
> > On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> > > Hi, all
> > >
> > > We found that there were a lot of commits that were cherry-picked to
> > > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to reach a
> > > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone were also
> > > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the corresponding
> > > cherry-picked commits:
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > >
> > > According to our release policy[0] and the code freeze notification
> > > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0 will
> > > require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking.
> > > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide the context for
> > > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Then mark it with
> > > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach a consensus.
> > >
> > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the context for the above
> > > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in Pulsar 3.0?
> > > If there is still no consensus for the above commits, we may need to
> > > revert them before the RC3.
> > >
> > > If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let
> > > us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
> > >
> > > [0] https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Zike Yang
> > >
> >
>
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com>.
I agree it's documented and the first time can be hard.
But maybe the document is lacking the practical steps for discussing
"Occasional exceptions will be
possible after higher scrutiny of the change" ?
That's why I'm suggesting a clear way for getting in touch with the release
managers
Nicolò Boschi
Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 09:39 Christophe Bornet <
bornet.chris@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> This process is already documented :
> https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
>
> "For feature releases and LTS releases, the last 3 weeks of the
> release cycle will be marked as a code-freeze period. The RM will
> branch off from master, and the RM is also responsible for selecting
> the changes that will be cherry-picked in the release branch.
>
> From the code-freeze point, to minimize the risk of delaying the
> release, only bug fixes involving a regression of behavior compared to
> a previous release should be allowed. Occasional exceptions will be
> possible after higher scrutiny of the change."
>
> We already sent many mails reminding this process. Maybe this needs
> time to get awareness by everyone since it's the first time we do it.
> I hope everyone will eventually understand why we do that and that
> from now on there will be discussion and notification of the RMs
> before cherry-picking to the release branch.
>
> Thanks
>
> Christophe
>
> Le ven. 21 avr. 2023 à 09:27, Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
> >
> > I believe that currently there's no clear process in place in order to
> > decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into the frozen branch.
> > I know that we have a slack channel for the release coordination
> > #pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone.
> >
> > One solution would be to let the release managers cherry-pick the
> commits -
> > they are the contributors more focused on the stability of the release
> > branch and they might be able to discuss if it's worthwhile.
> > Their opinion is not more important than others, but they need to know it
> > anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and avoid unintended
> > consequences.
> > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more complex
> > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here.
> >
> > When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit, instead of directly
> > going for it without any discussion, they can ask in the release slack
> > channel.
> > The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it.
> > If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved to the mailing
> list. I
> > believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that currently we rely on
> > the common sense of committers.
> >
> > What do you think?
> > Nicolò Boschi
> >
> >
> > Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org>
> ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > > Hi Zike,
> > >
> > > I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed message PRs to branch-3.0.
> > >
> > > Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since it is the new
> feature
> > > of the delayed message and has no impact on other components.
> > >
> > > These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix some problem with the
> new
> > > delayed message and make this new feature work better.
> > >
> > > Need to cherry-pick PR:
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Cong Zhao
> > >
> > > On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> > > > Hi, all
> > > >
> > > > We found that there were a lot of commits that were cherry-picked to
> > > > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to reach a
> > > > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone were also
> > > > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the corresponding
> > > > cherry-picked commits:
> > > > *
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > > *
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > > *
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > > *
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > > *
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > > *
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > > *
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > > *
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > > *
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > > >
> > > > According to our release policy[0] and the code freeze notification
> > > > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0 will
> > > > require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking.
> > > > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide the context for
> > > > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Then mark it with
> > > > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach a consensus.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the context for the
> above
> > > > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in Pulsar 3.0?
> > > > If there is still no consensus for the above commits, we may need to
> > > > revert them before the RC3.
> > > >
> > > > If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let
> > > > us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
> > > >
> > > > [0]
> https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Zike Yang
> > > >
> > >
>
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by Christophe Bornet <bo...@gmail.com>.
This process is already documented :
https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
"For feature releases and LTS releases, the last 3 weeks of the
release cycle will be marked as a code-freeze period. The RM will
branch off from master, and the RM is also responsible for selecting
the changes that will be cherry-picked in the release branch.
From the code-freeze point, to minimize the risk of delaying the
release, only bug fixes involving a regression of behavior compared to
a previous release should be allowed. Occasional exceptions will be
possible after higher scrutiny of the change."
We already sent many mails reminding this process. Maybe this needs
time to get awareness by everyone since it's the first time we do it.
I hope everyone will eventually understand why we do that and that
from now on there will be discussion and notification of the RMs
before cherry-picking to the release branch.
Thanks
Christophe
Le ven. 21 avr. 2023 à 09:27, Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> I believe that currently there's no clear process in place in order to
> decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into the frozen branch.
> I know that we have a slack channel for the release coordination
> #pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone.
>
> One solution would be to let the release managers cherry-pick the commits -
> they are the contributors more focused on the stability of the release
> branch and they might be able to discuss if it's worthwhile.
> Their opinion is not more important than others, but they need to know it
> anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and avoid unintended
> consequences.
> The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more complex
> discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here.
>
> When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit, instead of directly
> going for it without any discussion, they can ask in the release slack
> channel.
> The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it.
> If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved to the mailing list. I
> believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that currently we rely on
> the common sense of committers.
>
> What do you think?
> Nicolò Boschi
>
>
> Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> ha
> scritto:
>
> > Hi Zike,
> >
> > I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed message PRs to branch-3.0.
> >
> > Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since it is the new feature
> > of the delayed message and has no impact on other components.
> >
> > These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix some problem with the new
> > delayed message and make this new feature work better.
> >
> > Need to cherry-pick PR:
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cong Zhao
> >
> > On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> > > Hi, all
> > >
> > > We found that there were a lot of commits that were cherry-picked to
> > > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to reach a
> > > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone were also
> > > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the corresponding
> > > cherry-picked commits:
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > > *
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> > >
> > > According to our release policy[0] and the code freeze notification
> > > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0 will
> > > require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking.
> > > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide the context for
> > > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Then mark it with
> > > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach a consensus.
> > >
> > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the context for the above
> > > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in Pulsar 3.0?
> > > If there is still no consensus for the above commits, we may need to
> > > revert them before the RC3.
> > >
> > > If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let
> > > us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
> > >
> > > [0] https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Zike Yang
> > >
> >
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com>.
I believe that currently there's no clear process in place in order to
decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into the frozen branch.
I know that we have a slack channel for the release coordination
#pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone.
One solution would be to let the release managers cherry-pick the commits -
they are the contributors more focused on the stability of the release
branch and they might be able to discuss if it's worthwhile.
Their opinion is not more important than others, but they need to know it
anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and avoid unintended
consequences.
The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more complex
discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here.
When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit, instead of directly
going for it without any discussion, they can ask in the release slack
channel.
The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it.
If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved to the mailing list. I
believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that currently we rely on
the common sense of committers.
What do you think?
Nicolò Boschi
Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org> ha
scritto:
> Hi Zike,
>
> I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed message PRs to branch-3.0.
>
> Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since it is the new feature
> of the delayed message and has no impact on other components.
>
> These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix some problem with the new
> delayed message and make this new feature work better.
>
> Need to cherry-pick PR:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
>
> Thanks,
> Cong Zhao
>
> On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> > Hi, all
> >
> > We found that there were a lot of commits that were cherry-picked to
> > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to reach a
> > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone were also
> > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the corresponding
> > cherry-picked commits:
> > *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> > *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> > *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> > *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> > *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> > *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> > *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> > *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> > *
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
> >
> > According to our release policy[0] and the code freeze notification
> > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0 will
> > require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking.
> > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide the context for
> > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Then mark it with
> > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach a consensus.
> >
> > I would like to start a discussion regarding the context for the above
> > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in Pulsar 3.0?
> > If there is still no consensus for the above commits, we may need to
> > revert them before the RC3.
> >
> > If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let
> > us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
> >
> > [0] https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Zike Yang
> >
>
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by Cong Zhao <zh...@apache.org>.
Hi Zike,
I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed message PRs to branch-3.0.
Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since it is the new feature of the delayed message and has no impact on other components.
These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix some problem with the new delayed message and make this new feature work better.
Need to cherry-pick PR:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158
Thanks,
Cong Zhao
On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> We found that there were a lot of commits that were cherry-picked to
> branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to reach a
> consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone were also
> cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the corresponding
> cherry-picked commits:
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
>
> According to our release policy[0] and the code freeze notification
> [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0 will
> require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking.
> Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide the context for
> why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Then mark it with
> the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach a consensus.
>
> I would like to start a discussion regarding the context for the above
> cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in Pulsar 3.0?
> If there is still no consensus for the above commits, we may need to
> revert them before the RC3.
>
> If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let
> us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
>
> [0] https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
>
> Thanks,
> Zike Yang
>
Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus
Posted by Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>.
I cherry picked [0] because it is a very minor change that is required
to make PIP 257 (a PIP introduced in 3.0.0) work for the function
worker deploying functions with alternative authentication data. The
change is covered by a test and only removes a null check that was
creating inconsistent results. I request that we keep this commit in
the release.
Thanks,
Michael
[0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 12:37 AM Zike Yang <zi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi, all
>
> We found that there were a lot of commits that were cherry-picked to
> branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to reach a
> consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone were also
> cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the corresponding
> cherry-picked commits:
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c
> * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff
>
> According to our release policy[0] and the code freeze notification
> [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0 will
> require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking.
> Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide the context for
> why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Then mark it with
> the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach a consensus.
>
> I would like to start a discussion regarding the context for the above
> cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in Pulsar 3.0?
> If there is still no consensus for the above commits, we may need to
> revert them before the RC3.
>
> If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let
> us know. Thanks for your cooperation.
>
> [0] https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h
>
> Thanks,
> Zike Yang