You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pulsar.apache.org by tison <wa...@gmail.com> on 2023/03/26 12:27:04 UTC
PIP-214 has been proceeded without consensus
Hi,
I noticed that PIP-214[1] "Add broker level metrics statistics and expose
to prometheus" was discussed at [2], but we didn't start a vote. However,
the patch and doc updates were merged [3][4].
When trying to close the issue, I found this case, and I'm wondering if
it's not a proposal or we do something wrong here.
Best,
tison.
[1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18056
[2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/0qcwntm7hoc9x21dn21ybnq9qo5ogqsw
[3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19047
[4] https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/475
Re: PIP-214 has been proceeded without consensus
Posted by tison <wa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Yu,
Your comment is out of the scope of this thread. I suggest you start a
dedicated thread for the very topic.
N.B. PIP-214 is not about adding connectors. And I merged the Alluxio
connector[1] without a PIP.
Best,
tison.
[1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/3823
Liu Yu <li...@apache.org> 于2023年3月30日周四 15:01写道：
> Double-check: do we need a PIP for newly added connectors?
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19821#issuecomment-1488860517
>
> On 2023/03/27 14:14:23 tison wrote:
> > Hi Asaf,
> >
> > > Shouldn’t poeople that has write access to merge must first validate of
> > course if PIP is approved before merge?
> >
> > Yeah. I think they should have to.
> >
> > Now we have two issues here:
> >
> > 1. Since the patch is merged, I send a notice here so that if
> > anyone objects this proposal, they can raise a revert request.
> > 2. Validate our process and notify committers to verify PRs associated
> with
> > PIP that the proposal is approved. Maybe the author can help set the PR
> as
> > a draft before the PIP reached a consensus also.
> >
> > Best,
> > tison.
> >
> >
> > Asaf Mesika <as...@gmail.com> 于2023年3月27日周一 20:48写道：
> >
> > > I don’t a role in Pulsar.
> > > I reviewed the code and it was altered until it was satisfactory.
> > >
> > > Shouldn’t poeople that has write access to merge must first validate of
> > > course if PIP is approved before merge?
> > >
> > >
> > > > On 26 Mar 2023, at 15:27, tison <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I noticed that PIP-214[1] "Add broker level metrics statistics and
> expose
> > > > to prometheus" was discussed at [2], but we didn't start a vote.
> However,
> > > > the patch and doc updates were merged [3][4].
> > > >
> > > > When trying to close the issue, I found this case, and I'm wondering
> if
> > > > it's not a proposal or we do something wrong here.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > tison.
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18056
> > > > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/0qcwntm7hoc9x21dn21ybnq9qo5ogqsw
> > > > [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19047
> > > > [4] https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/475
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: PIP-214 has been proceeded without consensus
Posted by Liu Yu <li...@apache.org>.
Double-check: do we need a PIP for newly added connectors? https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19821#issuecomment-1488860517
On 2023/03/27 14:14:23 tison wrote:
> Hi Asaf,
>
> > Shouldn’t poeople that has write access to merge must first validate of
> course if PIP is approved before merge?
>
> Yeah. I think they should have to.
>
> Now we have two issues here:
>
> 1. Since the patch is merged, I send a notice here so that if
> anyone objects this proposal, they can raise a revert request.
> 2. Validate our process and notify committers to verify PRs associated with
> PIP that the proposal is approved. Maybe the author can help set the PR as
> a draft before the PIP reached a consensus also.
>
> Best,
> tison.
>
>
> Asaf Mesika <as...@gmail.com> 于2023年3月27日周一 20:48写道：
>
> > I don’t a role in Pulsar.
> > I reviewed the code and it was altered until it was satisfactory.
> >
> > Shouldn’t poeople that has write access to merge must first validate of
> > course if PIP is approved before merge?
> >
> >
> > > On 26 Mar 2023, at 15:27, tison <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I noticed that PIP-214[1] "Add broker level metrics statistics and expose
> > > to prometheus" was discussed at [2], but we didn't start a vote. However,
> > > the patch and doc updates were merged [3][4].
> > >
> > > When trying to close the issue, I found this case, and I'm wondering if
> > > it's not a proposal or we do something wrong here.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > tison.
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18056
> > > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/0qcwntm7hoc9x21dn21ybnq9qo5ogqsw
> > > [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19047
> > > [4] https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/475
> >
> >
>
Re: PIP-214 has been proceeded without consensus
Posted by tison <wa...@gmail.com>.
Hi Asaf,
> Shouldn’t poeople that has write access to merge must first validate of
course if PIP is approved before merge?
Yeah. I think they should have to.
Now we have two issues here:
1. Since the patch is merged, I send a notice here so that if
anyone objects this proposal, they can raise a revert request.
2. Validate our process and notify committers to verify PRs associated with
PIP that the proposal is approved. Maybe the author can help set the PR as
a draft before the PIP reached a consensus also.
Best,
tison.
Asaf Mesika <as...@gmail.com> 于2023年3月27日周一 20:48写道：
> I don’t a role in Pulsar.
> I reviewed the code and it was altered until it was satisfactory.
>
> Shouldn’t poeople that has write access to merge must first validate of
> course if PIP is approved before merge?
>
>
> > On 26 Mar 2023, at 15:27, tison <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I noticed that PIP-214[1] "Add broker level metrics statistics and expose
> > to prometheus" was discussed at [2], but we didn't start a vote. However,
> > the patch and doc updates were merged [3][4].
> >
> > When trying to close the issue, I found this case, and I'm wondering if
> > it's not a proposal or we do something wrong here.
> >
> > Best,
> > tison.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18056
> > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/0qcwntm7hoc9x21dn21ybnq9qo5ogqsw
> > [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19047
> > [4] https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/475
>
>
Re: PIP-214 has been proceeded without consensus
Posted by Asaf Mesika <as...@gmail.com>.
I don’t a role in Pulsar.
I reviewed the code and it was altered until it was satisfactory.
Shouldn’t poeople that has write access to merge must first validate of course if PIP is approved before merge?
> On 26 Mar 2023, at 15:27, tison <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that PIP-214[1] "Add broker level metrics statistics and expose
> to prometheus" was discussed at [2], but we didn't start a vote. However,
> the patch and doc updates were merged [3][4].
>
> When trying to close the issue, I found this case, and I'm wondering if
> it's not a proposal or we do something wrong here.
>
> Best,
> tison.
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18056
> [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/0qcwntm7hoc9x21dn21ybnq9qo5ogqsw
> [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19047
> [4] https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/475
Re: PIP-214 has been proceeded without consensus
Posted by Asaf Mesika <as...@gmail.com>.
I don’t a role in Pulsar.
I reviewed the code and it was altered until it was satisfactory.
Shouldn’t poeople that has write access to merge must first validate of course if PIP is approved before merge?
> On 26 Mar 2023, at 15:27, tison <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that PIP-214[1] "Add broker level metrics statistics and expose
> to prometheus" was discussed at [2], but we didn't start a vote. However,
> the patch and doc updates were merged [3][4].
>
> When trying to close the issue, I found this case, and I'm wondering if
> it's not a proposal or we do something wrong here.
>
> Best,
> tison.
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18056
> [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/0qcwntm7hoc9x21dn21ybnq9qo5ogqsw
> [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19047
> [4] https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/475