[VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Ran Gao <rg...@apache.org>]

Sorry, the 2.9.2 release candidate-1 has a wrong sign certificate.

This is the second release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.9.2.

*** Please download, test, and vote on this release. This vote will stay
open
for at least 72 hours ***

Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided for
convenience.

Source and binary files:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.2-candidate-2/

SHA-512 checksums:

563f65582c5307b4ef1e0322958ed19d7c181fb8bb8d7b8cab06ab0a6adb5520f7d18b6f97960b93c3318815529a8b8721e00e9cc9484532a2e5ed3221450094
 ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-bin.tar.gz
60d1049611b938b0ddc769132124d43820728afc8a06813a5ec9efc095c5497c59d9bbcaaf7df5b0c0e97e051d66f59c1f8ee08885d05ca2c635773e0283770a
 ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-src.tar.gz

Maven staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1136

The tag to be voted upon:
v2.9.2-candidate-2 (8a5d2253b888b3b865a2aedf635d6727777821c7)
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.9.2-candidate-2

Pulsar's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/KEYS

Please download the source package, and follow the README to build
and run the Pulsar standalone service.

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>]

> given the fact that Transactions are not something that you can use in
production in 2.9

Yes, for transactions, it's better to use the latest branch-2.9, not 2.9.1
or 2.9.2.

> If it is a matter of fixing the problem reported by Nicolò, then we
should fix it and let people try out transactions.

Yes, Congbo and I have a discussion yesterday, he has pushed out a fix
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192
It's a more general solution for the issue.

And, I would like to clarify the bug, it's not a common case, it's depends
multiple conditions,

1. users disabled transactions at the client-side, workaround to enable the
transaction at the client-side
2. no new messages for a topic, if the producer continues sending messages,
the issue will be fixed

So, I don't think it should be a blocker for the new release. Of course, if
the bug
seriously affect the use of normal transaction cases, we should stop the
release and wait for the fix.

> We have the responsibility to cut good quality releases, and as we are
contributing here all as volunteers there is no strict deadline.

We have the same goal, to provide good quality releases,
But that doesn't mean a very long release time is a good choice,
This happened two years ago, a minor version release we will take more than
3 month
Find a new bug, cancel the release, again and again.
So PIP 47 was introduced.

> we should take into consideration the voice of our users.

Yes, agree.

Thanks,
Penghui


On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 1:09 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Peng Hui,
> given the fact that Transactions are not something that you can use in
> production in 2.9,
> then we could move forward with this release.
>
> But this would be a real pity, because we are stating that users
> should not use transactions because they are not stable.
>
> If it is a matter of fixing the problem reported by Nicolò, then we
> should fix it and let people try out transactions.
>
> We are not in a hurry, and as you said, if someone is in a hurry, they
> can build Pulsar from branch-2.9.
>
> We have the responsibility to cut good quality releases, and as we are
> contributing here all as volunteers there is no strict deadline.
>
> Also Nicolò reported the error because he has several integration
> tests that are not passing on 2.9.2rc0,
> we should take into consideration the voice of our users.
>
> I am not going to VOTE -1, but I will hold off casting a vote on 2.9.2RC0
>
> Gao, please consider my vote as "-0"
>
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno mer 9 feb 2022 alle ore 09:14 PengHui Li
> <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Does this mean that transactions are not yet stable in 2.9? I think we
> > need to clarify this point and then communicate that to our users.
> >
> > At least currently it is not a stable version, all the components have
> been
> > completed
> > but at least not verified on a large scale, the performance needs to be
> > optimized.
> > Not all cases have been handled well.
> >
> > And look back to the PR  https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097, it
> > does not block
> > the common case of transactions, there are many fixes not in 2.9.2
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.3+transaction
> >
> > > Our time based release plan defined in PIP 47 does not define a
> > timeline for patch releases. Regarding patch releases, it only says
> > "We will also attempt, as a community to do bugfix releases as needed
> > for the last 4 releases
> >
> > We don't contain many fixes in 2.9.1 right? and 2.9.1 released at
> > 2021/12/20,
> > So when should we release 2.9.2?
> >
> > > I do not consider this a failure. One of the benefits of using an
> > open source project is that you can build it yourself. Given that
> > users have this option.
> >
> > The root cause is they need to wait a long time for a minor release
> right?
> > If it's a our desired outcome, why do we still do releases?
> >
> > > known regressions for stable features. We may not have known
> > about this regression in 2.9.1, but we know about it now, before the
> 2.9.2
> > vote has closed.
> >
> > The 2.9.2 release process is already started and the regression is not
> > introduced in 2.9.2,
> > Will there be any problems in the 2.9.3 release? We didn't release a
> worse
> > version,
> > Essentially we want serious issues to be fixed as quickly as possible,
> but
> > we shouldn't delay
> > the release of other more important fixes
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 2:53 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I am -0 for this release because of the transaction regression,
> > > assuming it is as bad as Enrico described. I don't know enough about
> > > the transaction feature's stability to give a "-1".
> > >
> > > > There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for
> all of
> > > > them to be completed
> > >
> > > Does this mean that transactions are not yet stable in 2.9? I think we
> > > need to clarify this point and then communicate that to our users.
> > >
> > > > We should follow the time-based release mode.
> > >
> > > Our time based release plan defined in PIP 47 does not define a
> > > timeline for patch releases. Regarding patch releases, it only says
> > > "We will also attempt, as a community to do bugfix releases as needed
> > > for the last 4 releases.".
> > >
> > > > I see many users can't wait for our release,
> > > > they build from the branch-2.9 manually.
> > >
> > > I do not consider this a failure. One of the benefits of using an
> > > open source project is that you can build it yourself. Given that
> > > users have this option, I think we should strive for releases without
> > > large, known regressions for stable features. We may not have known
> > > about this regression in 2.9.1, but we know about it now, before the
> 2.9.2
> > > vote has closed.
> > >
> > > > If the time-based release doesn't work, I think we should have a
> > > discussion
> > > > in the private email list
> > >
> > > I request this discussion happen on the dev list to allow for user and
> > > contributor feedback.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 11:08 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi enrico,
> > > >
> > > > There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for
> all of
> > > > them to be completed
> > > > Please move them to 2.9.3 and don't block the 2.9.2 release.
> > > >
> > > > And https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097 also in the
> discussion
> > > > stage,
> > > > We should keep calm at this time, no need to hurry to merge a 100%
> clear
> > > > plan,
> > > > otherwise, we might introduce other regression in 2.9.2.
> > > >
> > > > Another point is non-transaction users are much larger than
> transaction
> > > > users for now,
> > > > there are many critical issue fixes in 2.9.2, I see many users can't
> wait
> > > > for our release,
> > > > they build from the branch-2.9 manually.
> > > >
> > > > We should follow the time-based release mode. If the release doesn't
> have
> > > > critical security issues, regressions.
> > > > we should not block the release, instead, we should prepare for the
> > > release
> > > > of 2.9.3 earlier.
> > > >
> > > > If the time-based release doesn't work, I think we should have a
> > > discussion
> > > > in the private email list
> > > > to find a good solution for Pulsar release, Let everyone keep
> consistent
> > > on
> > > > the rules for release.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Penghui
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 5:04 PM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Penghui, Gao,
> > > > > see my comments below please
> > > > >
> > > > > Il giorno mar 8 feb 2022 alle ore 09:16 Hang Chen
> > > > > <ch...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1 (binding)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Verified the following context.
> > > > > > 1. Checked the checksum and licenses
> > > > > > 2. Build from the source code successfully
> > > > > > 3. Start standalone and run pulsar-perf with produce and consume
> > > > > > 4. Checked the Pulsar function and stateful functions
> > > > > > 5. Run Pulsar with KOP and publish and consume successfully with
> > > Kafka
> > > > > > 3.1.0 client
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Hang
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> 于2022年2月7日周一 18:01写道：
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 (binding)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Checked the signature
> > > > > > > 2. Build from the source successfully
> > > > > > > 3. Start standalone
> > > > > > > 4. Publish and consume successfully
> > > > > > > 5. Cassandra connect works well
> > > > > > > 6. Checked state function
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And passed our internal integration tests.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Penghui
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 4:37 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's not a regression in 2.9.2, we should not block the 2.9.2
> > > > > release.
> > > > > > > > Instead, we can have the fix in 2.9.3.
> > > > >
> > > > > It depends on the timeline of 2.9.3...but we cannot "promise" we
> will
> > > > > follow up immediately with another release.
> > > > >
> > > > > My understanding is that now if you enable transactions then you
> > > > > cannot use regular Pulsar producers.
> > > > > And from 2.9 we said that Transactions are no more BETA
> > > > >
> > > > > This is very bad from my point of view.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that this is not a regression of 2.9.2 vs 2.9.1, but
> basically
> > > > > the Transactions feature is not usable
> > > > >
> > > > > There is already a PR open, with a good discussion.
> > > > > I believe that we should not hurry up in doing this release and we
> can
> > > > > fix the problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > We should fix the problem and then roll a new RC
> > > > >
> > > > > If my understanding is correct, then I am -1 in releasing this RC.
> > > > > If it is not correct, then I am happy to continue testing this RC.
> > > > >
> > > > > Enrico
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Penghui
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 8:42 PM Nicolò Boschi <
> > > boschi1997@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Hi Ran, thanks for driving the release.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I haven't tested the rc yet but I firmly believe we should
> > > include
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> pull [1] which fixes a regression introduced in Pulsar 2.9.0
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Il giorno mer 2 feb 2022 alle ore 08:34 Enrico Olivelli <
> > > > > > > >> eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> ha scritto:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > (sorry for the late reply, I am still testing, I had some
> > > other
> > > > > > > >> > priorities).
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > I hope that the community will test this RC and report
> back
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Enrico
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Il giorno mar 25 gen 2022 alle ore 15:07 Ran Gao <
> > > rgao@apache.org>
> > > > > ha
> > > > > > > >> > scritto:
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Sorry, the 2.9.2 release candidate-1 has a wrong sign
> > > > > certificate.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > This is the second release candidate for Apache Pulsar,
> > > version
> > > > > 2.9.2.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > *** Please download, test, and vote on this release.
> This
> > > vote
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> stay
> > > > > > > >> > > open
> > > > > > > >> > > for at least 72 hours ***
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries
> are
> > > > > provided
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > > convenience.
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Source and binary files:
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.2-candidate-2/
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > SHA-512 checksums:
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> 563f65582c5307b4ef1e0322958ed19d7c181fb8bb8d7b8cab06ab0a6adb5520f7d18b6f97960b93c3318815529a8b8721e00e9cc9484532a2e5ed3221450094
> > > > > > > >> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-bin.tar.gz
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> 60d1049611b938b0ddc769132124d43820728afc8a06813a5ec9efc095c5497c59d9bbcaaf7df5b0c0e97e051d66f59c1f8ee08885d05ca2c635773e0283770a
> > > > > > > >> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-src.tar.gz
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Maven staging repo:
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1136
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > The tag to be voted upon:
> > > > > > > >> > > v2.9.2-candidate-2
> > > (8a5d2253b888b3b865a2aedf635d6727777821c7)
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.9.2-candidate-2
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Pulsar's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign
> the
> > > > > release:
> > > > > > > >> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/KEYS
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > Please download the source package, and follow the
> README to
> > > > > build
> > > > > > > >> > > and run the Pulsar standalone service.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > >> Nicolò Boschi
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>]

Peng Hui,
given the fact that Transactions are not something that you can use in
production in 2.9,
then we could move forward with this release.

But this would be a real pity, because we are stating that users
should not use transactions because they are not stable.

If it is a matter of fixing the problem reported by Nicolò, then we
should fix it and let people try out transactions.

We are not in a hurry, and as you said, if someone is in a hurry, they
can build Pulsar from branch-2.9.

We have the responsibility to cut good quality releases, and as we are
contributing here all as volunteers there is no strict deadline.

Also Nicolò reported the error because he has several integration
tests that are not passing on 2.9.2rc0,
we should take into consideration the voice of our users.

I am not going to VOTE -1, but I will hold off casting a vote on 2.9.2RC0

Gao, please consider my vote as "-0"

Enrico

Il giorno mer 9 feb 2022 alle ore 09:14 PengHui Li
<pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>
> > Does this mean that transactions are not yet stable in 2.9? I think we
> need to clarify this point and then communicate that to our users.
>
> At least currently it is not a stable version, all the components have been
> completed
> but at least not verified on a large scale, the performance needs to be
> optimized.
> Not all cases have been handled well.
>
> And look back to the PR  https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097, it
> does not block
> the common case of transactions, there are many fixes not in 2.9.2
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.3+transaction
>
> > Our time based release plan defined in PIP 47 does not define a
> timeline for patch releases. Regarding patch releases, it only says
> "We will also attempt, as a community to do bugfix releases as needed
> for the last 4 releases
>
> We don't contain many fixes in 2.9.1 right? and 2.9.1 released at
> 2021/12/20,
> So when should we release 2.9.2?
>
> > I do not consider this a failure. One of the benefits of using an
> open source project is that you can build it yourself. Given that
> users have this option.
>
> The root cause is they need to wait a long time for a minor release right?
> If it's a our desired outcome, why do we still do releases?
>
> > known regressions for stable features. We may not have known
> about this regression in 2.9.1, but we know about it now, before the 2.9.2
> vote has closed.
>
> The 2.9.2 release process is already started and the regression is not
> introduced in 2.9.2,
> Will there be any problems in the 2.9.3 release? We didn't release a worse
> version,
> Essentially we want serious issues to be fixed as quickly as possible, but
> we shouldn't delay
> the release of other more important fixes
>
> Thanks,
> Penghui
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 2:53 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I am -0 for this release because of the transaction regression,
> > assuming it is as bad as Enrico described. I don't know enough about
> > the transaction feature's stability to give a "-1".
> >
> > > There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for all of
> > > them to be completed
> >
> > Does this mean that transactions are not yet stable in 2.9? I think we
> > need to clarify this point and then communicate that to our users.
> >
> > > We should follow the time-based release mode.
> >
> > Our time based release plan defined in PIP 47 does not define a
> > timeline for patch releases. Regarding patch releases, it only says
> > "We will also attempt, as a community to do bugfix releases as needed
> > for the last 4 releases.".
> >
> > > I see many users can't wait for our release,
> > > they build from the branch-2.9 manually.
> >
> > I do not consider this a failure. One of the benefits of using an
> > open source project is that you can build it yourself. Given that
> > users have this option, I think we should strive for releases without
> > large, known regressions for stable features. We may not have known
> > about this regression in 2.9.1, but we know about it now, before the 2.9.2
> > vote has closed.
> >
> > > If the time-based release doesn't work, I think we should have a
> > discussion
> > > in the private email list
> >
> > I request this discussion happen on the dev list to allow for user and
> > contributor feedback.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 11:08 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi enrico,
> > >
> > > There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for all of
> > > them to be completed
> > > Please move them to 2.9.3 and don't block the 2.9.2 release.
> > >
> > > And https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097 also in the discussion
> > > stage,
> > > We should keep calm at this time, no need to hurry to merge a 100% clear
> > > plan,
> > > otherwise, we might introduce other regression in 2.9.2.
> > >
> > > Another point is non-transaction users are much larger than transaction
> > > users for now,
> > > there are many critical issue fixes in 2.9.2, I see many users can't wait
> > > for our release,
> > > they build from the branch-2.9 manually.
> > >
> > > We should follow the time-based release mode. If the release doesn't have
> > > critical security issues, regressions.
> > > we should not block the release, instead, we should prepare for the
> > release
> > > of 2.9.3 earlier.
> > >
> > > If the time-based release doesn't work, I think we should have a
> > discussion
> > > in the private email list
> > > to find a good solution for Pulsar release, Let everyone keep consistent
> > on
> > > the rules for release.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Penghui
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 5:04 PM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Penghui, Gao,
> > > > see my comments below please
> > > >
> > > > Il giorno mar 8 feb 2022 alle ore 09:16 Hang Chen
> > > > <ch...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 (binding)
> > > > >
> > > > > Verified the following context.
> > > > > 1. Checked the checksum and licenses
> > > > > 2. Build from the source code successfully
> > > > > 3. Start standalone and run pulsar-perf with produce and consume
> > > > > 4. Checked the Pulsar function and stateful functions
> > > > > 5. Run Pulsar with KOP and publish and consume successfully with
> > Kafka
> > > > > 3.1.0 client
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Hang
> > > > >
> > > > > PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> 于2022年2月7日周一 18:01写道：
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1 (binding)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Checked the signature
> > > > > > 2. Build from the source successfully
> > > > > > 3. Start standalone
> > > > > > 4. Publish and consume successfully
> > > > > > 5. Cassandra connect works well
> > > > > > 6. Checked state function
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And passed our internal integration tests.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Penghui
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 4:37 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's not a regression in 2.9.2, we should not block the 2.9.2
> > > > release.
> > > > > > > Instead, we can have the fix in 2.9.3.
> > > >
> > > > It depends on the timeline of 2.9.3...but we cannot "promise" we will
> > > > follow up immediately with another release.
> > > >
> > > > My understanding is that now if you enable transactions then you
> > > > cannot use regular Pulsar producers.
> > > > And from 2.9 we said that Transactions are no more BETA
> > > >
> > > > This is very bad from my point of view.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that this is not a regression of 2.9.2 vs 2.9.1, but basically
> > > > the Transactions feature is not usable
> > > >
> > > > There is already a PR open, with a good discussion.
> > > > I believe that we should not hurry up in doing this release and we can
> > > > fix the problem.
> > > >
> > > > We should fix the problem and then roll a new RC
> > > >
> > > > If my understanding is correct, then I am -1 in releasing this RC.
> > > > If it is not correct, then I am happy to continue testing this RC.
> > > >
> > > > Enrico
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Penghui
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 8:42 PM Nicolò Boschi <
> > boschi1997@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Hi Ran, thanks for driving the release.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I haven't tested the rc yet but I firmly believe we should
> > include
> > > > this
> > > > > > >> pull [1] which fixes a regression introduced in Pulsar 2.9.0
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Il giorno mer 2 feb 2022 alle ore 08:34 Enrico Olivelli <
> > > > > > >> eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> ha scritto:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > (sorry for the late reply, I am still testing, I had some
> > other
> > > > > > >> > priorities).
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > I hope that the community will test this RC and report back
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Enrico
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Il giorno mar 25 gen 2022 alle ore 15:07 Ran Gao <
> > rgao@apache.org>
> > > > ha
> > > > > > >> > scritto:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Sorry, the 2.9.2 release candidate-1 has a wrong sign
> > > > certificate.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > This is the second release candidate for Apache Pulsar,
> > version
> > > > 2.9.2.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > *** Please download, test, and vote on this release. This
> > vote
> > > > will
> > > > > > >> stay
> > > > > > >> > > open
> > > > > > >> > > for at least 72 hours ***
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are
> > > > provided
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> > > convenience.
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Source and binary files:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > >
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.2-candidate-2/
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > SHA-512 checksums:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > >
> > 563f65582c5307b4ef1e0322958ed19d7c181fb8bb8d7b8cab06ab0a6adb5520f7d18b6f97960b93c3318815529a8b8721e00e9cc9484532a2e5ed3221450094
> > > > > > >> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-bin.tar.gz
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > >
> > 60d1049611b938b0ddc769132124d43820728afc8a06813a5ec9efc095c5497c59d9bbcaaf7df5b0c0e97e051d66f59c1f8ee08885d05ca2c635773e0283770a
> > > > > > >> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-src.tar.gz
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Maven staging repo:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > >
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1136
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > The tag to be voted upon:
> > > > > > >> > > v2.9.2-candidate-2
> > (8a5d2253b888b3b865a2aedf635d6727777821c7)
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.9.2-candidate-2
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Pulsar's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
> > > > release:
> > > > > > >> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/KEYS
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Please download the source package, and follow the README to
> > > > build
> > > > > > >> > > and run the Pulsar standalone service.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> Nicolò Boschi
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> >

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>]

> Does this mean that transactions are not yet stable in 2.9? I think we
need to clarify this point and then communicate that to our users.

At least currently it is not a stable version, all the components have been
completed
but at least not verified on a large scale, the performance needs to be
optimized.
Not all cases have been handled well.

And look back to the PR  https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097, it
does not block
the common case of transactions, there are many fixes not in 2.9.2
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.3+transaction

> Our time based release plan defined in PIP 47 does not define a
timeline for patch releases. Regarding patch releases, it only says
"We will also attempt, as a community to do bugfix releases as needed
for the last 4 releases

We don't contain many fixes in 2.9.1 right? and 2.9.1 released at
2021/12/20,
So when should we release 2.9.2?

> I do not consider this a failure. One of the benefits of using an
open source project is that you can build it yourself. Given that
users have this option.

The root cause is they need to wait a long time for a minor release right?
If it's a our desired outcome, why do we still do releases?

> known regressions for stable features. We may not have known
about this regression in 2.9.1, but we know about it now, before the 2.9.2
vote has closed.

The 2.9.2 release process is already started and the regression is not
introduced in 2.9.2,
Will there be any problems in the 2.9.3 release? We didn't release a worse
version,
Essentially we want serious issues to be fixed as quickly as possible, but
we shouldn't delay
the release of other more important fixes

Thanks,
Penghui

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 2:53 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
wrote:

> I am -0 for this release because of the transaction regression,
> assuming it is as bad as Enrico described. I don't know enough about
> the transaction feature's stability to give a "-1".
>
> > There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for all of
> > them to be completed
>
> Does this mean that transactions are not yet stable in 2.9? I think we
> need to clarify this point and then communicate that to our users.
>
> > We should follow the time-based release mode.
>
> Our time based release plan defined in PIP 47 does not define a
> timeline for patch releases. Regarding patch releases, it only says
> "We will also attempt, as a community to do bugfix releases as needed
> for the last 4 releases.".
>
> > I see many users can't wait for our release,
> > they build from the branch-2.9 manually.
>
> I do not consider this a failure. One of the benefits of using an
> open source project is that you can build it yourself. Given that
> users have this option, I think we should strive for releases without
> large, known regressions for stable features. We may not have known
> about this regression in 2.9.1, but we know about it now, before the 2.9.2
> vote has closed.
>
> > If the time-based release doesn't work, I think we should have a
> discussion
> > in the private email list
>
> I request this discussion happen on the dev list to allow for user and
> contributor feedback.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 11:08 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi enrico,
> >
> > There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for all of
> > them to be completed
> > Please move them to 2.9.3 and don't block the 2.9.2 release.
> >
> > And https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097 also in the discussion
> > stage,
> > We should keep calm at this time, no need to hurry to merge a 100% clear
> > plan,
> > otherwise, we might introduce other regression in 2.9.2.
> >
> > Another point is non-transaction users are much larger than transaction
> > users for now,
> > there are many critical issue fixes in 2.9.2, I see many users can't wait
> > for our release,
> > they build from the branch-2.9 manually.
> >
> > We should follow the time-based release mode. If the release doesn't have
> > critical security issues, regressions.
> > we should not block the release, instead, we should prepare for the
> release
> > of 2.9.3 earlier.
> >
> > If the time-based release doesn't work, I think we should have a
> discussion
> > in the private email list
> > to find a good solution for Pulsar release, Let everyone keep consistent
> on
> > the rules for release.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 5:04 PM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Penghui, Gao,
> > > see my comments below please
> > >
> > > Il giorno mar 8 feb 2022 alle ore 09:16 Hang Chen
> > > <ch...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > +1 (binding)
> > > >
> > > > Verified the following context.
> > > > 1. Checked the checksum and licenses
> > > > 2. Build from the source code successfully
> > > > 3. Start standalone and run pulsar-perf with produce and consume
> > > > 4. Checked the Pulsar function and stateful functions
> > > > 5. Run Pulsar with KOP and publish and consume successfully with
> Kafka
> > > > 3.1.0 client
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Hang
> > > >
> > > > PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> 于2022年2月7日周一 18:01写道：
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 (binding)
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Checked the signature
> > > > > 2. Build from the source successfully
> > > > > 3. Start standalone
> > > > > 4. Publish and consume successfully
> > > > > 5. Cassandra connect works well
> > > > > 6. Checked state function
> > > > >
> > > > > And passed our internal integration tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Penghui
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 4:37 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It's not a regression in 2.9.2, we should not block the 2.9.2
> > > release.
> > > > > > Instead, we can have the fix in 2.9.3.
> > >
> > > It depends on the timeline of 2.9.3...but we cannot "promise" we will
> > > follow up immediately with another release.
> > >
> > > My understanding is that now if you enable transactions then you
> > > cannot use regular Pulsar producers.
> > > And from 2.9 we said that Transactions are no more BETA
> > >
> > > This is very bad from my point of view.
> > >
> > > I agree that this is not a regression of 2.9.2 vs 2.9.1, but basically
> > > the Transactions feature is not usable
> > >
> > > There is already a PR open, with a good discussion.
> > > I believe that we should not hurry up in doing this release and we can
> > > fix the problem.
> > >
> > > We should fix the problem and then roll a new RC
> > >
> > > If my understanding is correct, then I am -1 in releasing this RC.
> > > If it is not correct, then I am happy to continue testing this RC.
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Penghui
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 8:42 PM Nicolò Boschi <
> boschi1997@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hi Ran, thanks for driving the release.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I haven't tested the rc yet but I firmly believe we should
> include
> > > this
> > > > > >> pull [1] which fixes a regression introduced in Pulsar 2.9.0
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Il giorno mer 2 feb 2022 alle ore 08:34 Enrico Olivelli <
> > > > > >> eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> ha scritto:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > (sorry for the late reply, I am still testing, I had some
> other
> > > > > >> > priorities).
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I hope that the community will test this RC and report back
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Enrico
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Il giorno mar 25 gen 2022 alle ore 15:07 Ran Gao <
> rgao@apache.org>
> > > ha
> > > > > >> > scritto:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Sorry, the 2.9.2 release candidate-1 has a wrong sign
> > > certificate.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > This is the second release candidate for Apache Pulsar,
> version
> > > 2.9.2.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > *** Please download, test, and vote on this release. This
> vote
> > > will
> > > > > >> stay
> > > > > >> > > open
> > > > > >> > > for at least 72 hours ***
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are
> > > provided
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > convenience.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Source and binary files:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >>
> > >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.2-candidate-2/
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > SHA-512 checksums:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > >
> 563f65582c5307b4ef1e0322958ed19d7c181fb8bb8d7b8cab06ab0a6adb5520f7d18b6f97960b93c3318815529a8b8721e00e9cc9484532a2e5ed3221450094
> > > > > >> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-bin.tar.gz
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > >
> 60d1049611b938b0ddc769132124d43820728afc8a06813a5ec9efc095c5497c59d9bbcaaf7df5b0c0e97e051d66f59c1f8ee08885d05ca2c635773e0283770a
> > > > > >> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-src.tar.gz
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Maven staging repo:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >>
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1136
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > The tag to be voted upon:
> > > > > >> > > v2.9.2-candidate-2
> (8a5d2253b888b3b865a2aedf635d6727777821c7)
> > > > > >> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.9.2-candidate-2
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Pulsar's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
> > > release:
> > > > > >> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/KEYS
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Please download the source package, and follow the README to
> > > build
> > > > > >> > > and run the Pulsar standalone service.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> Nicolò Boschi
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > >
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>]

I am -0 for this release because of the transaction regression,
assuming it is as bad as Enrico described. I don't know enough about
the transaction feature's stability to give a "-1".

> There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for all of
> them to be completed

Does this mean that transactions are not yet stable in 2.9? I think we
need to clarify this point and then communicate that to our users.

> We should follow the time-based release mode.

Our time based release plan defined in PIP 47 does not define a
timeline for patch releases. Regarding patch releases, it only says
"We will also attempt, as a community to do bugfix releases as needed
for the last 4 releases.".

> I see many users can't wait for our release,
> they build from the branch-2.9 manually.

I do not consider this a failure. One of the benefits of using an
open source project is that you can build it yourself. Given that
users have this option, I think we should strive for releases without
large, known regressions for stable features. We may not have known
about this regression in 2.9.1, but we know about it now, before the 2.9.2
vote has closed.

> If the time-based release doesn't work, I think we should have a discussion
> in the private email list

I request this discussion happen on the dev list to allow for user and
contributor feedback.

Thanks,
Michael



On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 11:08 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi enrico,
>
> There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for all of
> them to be completed
> Please move them to 2.9.3 and don't block the 2.9.2 release.
>
> And https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097 also in the discussion
> stage,
> We should keep calm at this time, no need to hurry to merge a 100% clear
> plan,
> otherwise, we might introduce other regression in 2.9.2.
>
> Another point is non-transaction users are much larger than transaction
> users for now,
> there are many critical issue fixes in 2.9.2, I see many users can't wait
> for our release,
> they build from the branch-2.9 manually.
>
> We should follow the time-based release mode. If the release doesn't have
> critical security issues, regressions.
> we should not block the release, instead, we should prepare for the release
> of 2.9.3 earlier.
>
> If the time-based release doesn't work, I think we should have a discussion
> in the private email list
> to find a good solution for Pulsar release, Let everyone keep consistent on
> the rules for release.
>
> Regards,
> Penghui
>
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 5:04 PM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Penghui, Gao,
> > see my comments below please
> >
> > Il giorno mar 8 feb 2022 alle ore 09:16 Hang Chen
> > <ch...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > Verified the following context.
> > > 1. Checked the checksum and licenses
> > > 2. Build from the source code successfully
> > > 3. Start standalone and run pulsar-perf with produce and consume
> > > 4. Checked the Pulsar function and stateful functions
> > > 5. Run Pulsar with KOP and publish and consume successfully with Kafka
> > > 3.1.0 client
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Hang
> > >
> > > PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> 于2022年2月7日周一 18:01写道：
> > > >
> > > > +1 (binding)
> > > >
> > > > 1. Checked the signature
> > > > 2. Build from the source successfully
> > > > 3. Start standalone
> > > > 4. Publish and consume successfully
> > > > 5. Cassandra connect works well
> > > > 6. Checked state function
> > > >
> > > > And passed our internal integration tests.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Penghui
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 4:37 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It's not a regression in 2.9.2, we should not block the 2.9.2
> > release.
> > > > > Instead, we can have the fix in 2.9.3.
> >
> > It depends on the timeline of 2.9.3...but we cannot "promise" we will
> > follow up immediately with another release.
> >
> > My understanding is that now if you enable transactions then you
> > cannot use regular Pulsar producers.
> > And from 2.9 we said that Transactions are no more BETA
> >
> > This is very bad from my point of view.
> >
> > I agree that this is not a regression of 2.9.2 vs 2.9.1, but basically
> > the Transactions feature is not usable
> >
> > There is already a PR open, with a good discussion.
> > I believe that we should not hurry up in doing this release and we can
> > fix the problem.
> >
> > We should fix the problem and then roll a new RC
> >
> > If my understanding is correct, then I am -1 in releasing this RC.
> > If it is not correct, then I am happy to continue testing this RC.
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Penghui
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 8:42 PM Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi Ran, thanks for driving the release.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I haven't tested the rc yet but I firmly believe we should include
> > this
> > > > >> pull [1] which fixes a regression introduced in Pulsar 2.9.0
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Il giorno mer 2 feb 2022 alle ore 08:34 Enrico Olivelli <
> > > > >> eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > > > >> ha scritto:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > (sorry for the late reply, I am still testing, I had some other
> > > > >> > priorities).
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I hope that the community will test this RC and report back
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Enrico
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Il giorno mar 25 gen 2022 alle ore 15:07 Ran Gao <rg...@apache.org>
> > ha
> > > > >> > scritto:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Sorry, the 2.9.2 release candidate-1 has a wrong sign
> > certificate.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > This is the second release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version
> > 2.9.2.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > *** Please download, test, and vote on this release. This vote
> > will
> > > > >> stay
> > > > >> > > open
> > > > >> > > for at least 72 hours ***
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are
> > provided
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > convenience.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Source and binary files:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >>
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.2-candidate-2/
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > SHA-512 checksums:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > 563f65582c5307b4ef1e0322958ed19d7c181fb8bb8d7b8cab06ab0a6adb5520f7d18b6f97960b93c3318815529a8b8721e00e9cc9484532a2e5ed3221450094
> > > > >> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-bin.tar.gz
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > 60d1049611b938b0ddc769132124d43820728afc8a06813a5ec9efc095c5497c59d9bbcaaf7df5b0c0e97e051d66f59c1f8ee08885d05ca2c635773e0283770a
> > > > >> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-src.tar.gz
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Maven staging repo:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >>
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1136
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > The tag to be voted upon:
> > > > >> > > v2.9.2-candidate-2 (8a5d2253b888b3b865a2aedf635d6727777821c7)
> > > > >> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.9.2-candidate-2
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Pulsar's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
> > release:
> > > > >> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/KEYS
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Please download the source package, and follow the README to
> > build
> > > > >> > > and run the Pulsar standalone service.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Nicolò Boschi
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> >

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>]

Hi enrico,

There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for all of
them to be completed
Please move them to 2.9.3 and don't block the 2.9.2 release.

And https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097 also in the discussion
stage,
We should keep calm at this time, no need to hurry to merge a 100% clear
plan,
otherwise, we might introduce other regression in 2.9.2.

Another point is non-transaction users are much larger than transaction
users for now,
there are many critical issue fixes in 2.9.2, I see many users can't wait
for our release,
they build from the branch-2.9 manually.

We should follow the time-based release mode. If the release doesn't have
critical security issues, regressions.
we should not block the release, instead, we should prepare for the release
of 2.9.3 earlier.

If the time-based release doesn't work, I think we should have a discussion
in the private email list
to find a good solution for Pulsar release, Let everyone keep consistent on
the rules for release.

Regards,
Penghui

On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 5:04 PM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Penghui, Gao,
> see my comments below please
>
> Il giorno mar 8 feb 2022 alle ore 09:16 Hang Chen
> <ch...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> >
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > Verified the following context.
> > 1. Checked the checksum and licenses
> > 2. Build from the source code successfully
> > 3. Start standalone and run pulsar-perf with produce and consume
> > 4. Checked the Pulsar function and stateful functions
> > 5. Run Pulsar with KOP and publish and consume successfully with Kafka
> > 3.1.0 client
> >
> > Best,
> > Hang
> >
> > PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> 于2022年2月7日周一 18:01写道：
> > >
> > > +1 (binding)
> > >
> > > 1. Checked the signature
> > > 2. Build from the source successfully
> > > 3. Start standalone
> > > 4. Publish and consume successfully
> > > 5. Cassandra connect works well
> > > 6. Checked state function
> > >
> > > And passed our internal integration tests.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Penghui
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 4:37 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's not a regression in 2.9.2, we should not block the 2.9.2
> release.
> > > > Instead, we can have the fix in 2.9.3.
>
> It depends on the timeline of 2.9.3...but we cannot "promise" we will
> follow up immediately with another release.
>
> My understanding is that now if you enable transactions then you
> cannot use regular Pulsar producers.
> And from 2.9 we said that Transactions are no more BETA
>
> This is very bad from my point of view.
>
> I agree that this is not a regression of 2.9.2 vs 2.9.1, but basically
> the Transactions feature is not usable
>
> There is already a PR open, with a good discussion.
> I believe that we should not hurry up in doing this release and we can
> fix the problem.
>
> We should fix the problem and then roll a new RC
>
> If my understanding is correct, then I am -1 in releasing this RC.
> If it is not correct, then I am happy to continue testing this RC.
>
> Enrico
>
>
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Penghui
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 8:42 PM Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Ran, thanks for driving the release.
> > > >>
> > > >> I haven't tested the rc yet but I firmly believe we should include
> this
> > > >> pull [1] which fixes a regression introduced in Pulsar 2.9.0
> > > >>
> > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Il giorno mer 2 feb 2022 alle ore 08:34 Enrico Olivelli <
> > > >> eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > > >> ha scritto:
> > > >>
> > > >> > (sorry for the late reply, I am still testing, I had some other
> > > >> > priorities).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I hope that the community will test this RC and report back
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Enrico
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Il giorno mar 25 gen 2022 alle ore 15:07 Ran Gao <rg...@apache.org>
> ha
> > > >> > scritto:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Sorry, the 2.9.2 release candidate-1 has a wrong sign
> certificate.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > This is the second release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version
> 2.9.2.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > *** Please download, test, and vote on this release. This vote
> will
> > > >> stay
> > > >> > > open
> > > >> > > for at least 72 hours ***
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are
> provided
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > convenience.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Source and binary files:
> > > >> > >
> > > >>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.2-candidate-2/
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > SHA-512 checksums:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> 563f65582c5307b4ef1e0322958ed19d7c181fb8bb8d7b8cab06ab0a6adb5520f7d18b6f97960b93c3318815529a8b8721e00e9cc9484532a2e5ed3221450094
> > > >> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-bin.tar.gz
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> 60d1049611b938b0ddc769132124d43820728afc8a06813a5ec9efc095c5497c59d9bbcaaf7df5b0c0e97e051d66f59c1f8ee08885d05ca2c635773e0283770a
> > > >> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-src.tar.gz
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Maven staging repo:
> > > >> > >
> > > >>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1136
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > The tag to be voted upon:
> > > >> > > v2.9.2-candidate-2 (8a5d2253b888b3b865a2aedf635d6727777821c7)
> > > >> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.9.2-candidate-2
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Pulsar's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the
> release:
> > > >> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/KEYS
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Please download the source package, and follow the README to
> build
> > > >> > > and run the Pulsar standalone service.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Nicolò Boschi
> > > >>
> > > >
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>]

Penghui, Gao,
see my comments below please

Il giorno mar 8 feb 2022 alle ore 09:16 Hang Chen
<ch...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Verified the following context.
> 1. Checked the checksum and licenses
> 2. Build from the source code successfully
> 3. Start standalone and run pulsar-perf with produce and consume
> 4. Checked the Pulsar function and stateful functions
> 5. Run Pulsar with KOP and publish and consume successfully with Kafka
> 3.1.0 client
>
> Best,
> Hang
>
> PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> 于2022年2月7日周一 18:01写道：
> >
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > 1. Checked the signature
> > 2. Build from the source successfully
> > 3. Start standalone
> > 4. Publish and consume successfully
> > 5. Cassandra connect works well
> > 6. Checked state function
> >
> > And passed our internal integration tests.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 4:37 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > It's not a regression in 2.9.2, we should not block the 2.9.2 release.
> > > Instead, we can have the fix in 2.9.3.

It depends on the timeline of 2.9.3...but we cannot "promise" we will
follow up immediately with another release.

My understanding is that now if you enable transactions then you
cannot use regular Pulsar producers.
And from 2.9 we said that Transactions are no more BETA

This is very bad from my point of view.

I agree that this is not a regression of 2.9.2 vs 2.9.1, but basically
the Transactions feature is not usable

There is already a PR open, with a good discussion.
I believe that we should not hurry up in doing this release and we can
fix the problem.

We should fix the problem and then roll a new RC

If my understanding is correct, then I am -1 in releasing this RC.
If it is not correct, then I am happy to continue testing this RC.

Enrico




> > >
> > > Penghui
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 8:42 PM Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Ran, thanks for driving the release.
> > >>
> > >> I haven't tested the rc yet but I firmly believe we should include this
> > >> pull [1] which fixes a regression introduced in Pulsar 2.9.0
> > >>
> > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Il giorno mer 2 feb 2022 alle ore 08:34 Enrico Olivelli <
> > >> eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > >> ha scritto:
> > >>
> > >> > (sorry for the late reply, I am still testing, I had some other
> > >> > priorities).
> > >> >
> > >> > I hope that the community will test this RC and report back
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Enrico
> > >> >
> > >> > Il giorno mar 25 gen 2022 alle ore 15:07 Ran Gao <rg...@apache.org> ha
> > >> > scritto:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Sorry, the 2.9.2 release candidate-1 has a wrong sign certificate.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > This is the second release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.9.2.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > *** Please download, test, and vote on this release. This vote will
> > >> stay
> > >> > > open
> > >> > > for at least 72 hours ***
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided
> > >> for
> > >> > > convenience.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Source and binary files:
> > >> > >
> > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.2-candidate-2/
> > >> > >
> > >> > > SHA-512 checksums:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> 563f65582c5307b4ef1e0322958ed19d7c181fb8bb8d7b8cab06ab0a6adb5520f7d18b6f97960b93c3318815529a8b8721e00e9cc9484532a2e5ed3221450094
> > >> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-bin.tar.gz
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> 60d1049611b938b0ddc769132124d43820728afc8a06813a5ec9efc095c5497c59d9bbcaaf7df5b0c0e97e051d66f59c1f8ee08885d05ca2c635773e0283770a
> > >> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-src.tar.gz
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Maven staging repo:
> > >> > >
> > >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1136
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The tag to be voted upon:
> > >> > > v2.9.2-candidate-2 (8a5d2253b888b3b865a2aedf635d6727777821c7)
> > >> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.9.2-candidate-2
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Pulsar's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> > >> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/KEYS
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Please download the source package, and follow the README to build
> > >> > > and run the Pulsar standalone service.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Nicolò Boschi
> > >>
> > >

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Hang Chen <ch...@apache.org>]

+1 (binding)

Verified the following context.
1. Checked the checksum and licenses
2. Build from the source code successfully
3. Start standalone and run pulsar-perf with produce and consume
4. Checked the Pulsar function and stateful functions
5. Run Pulsar with KOP and publish and consume successfully with Kafka
3.1.0 client

Best,
Hang

PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> 于2022年2月7日周一 18:01写道：
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> 1. Checked the signature
> 2. Build from the source successfully
> 3. Start standalone
> 4. Publish and consume successfully
> 5. Cassandra connect works well
> 6. Checked state function
>
> And passed our internal integration tests.
>
> Regards,
> Penghui
>
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 4:37 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > It's not a regression in 2.9.2, we should not block the 2.9.2 release.
> > Instead, we can have the fix in 2.9.3.
> >
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 8:42 PM Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Ran, thanks for driving the release.
> >>
> >> I haven't tested the rc yet but I firmly believe we should include this
> >> pull [1] which fixes a regression introduced in Pulsar 2.9.0
> >>
> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Il giorno mer 2 feb 2022 alle ore 08:34 Enrico Olivelli <
> >> eolivelli@gmail.com>
> >> ha scritto:
> >>
> >> > (sorry for the late reply, I am still testing, I had some other
> >> > priorities).
> >> >
> >> > I hope that the community will test this RC and report back
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Enrico
> >> >
> >> > Il giorno mar 25 gen 2022 alle ore 15:07 Ran Gao <rg...@apache.org> ha
> >> > scritto:
> >> > >
> >> > > Sorry, the 2.9.2 release candidate-1 has a wrong sign certificate.
> >> > >
> >> > > This is the second release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.9.2.
> >> > >
> >> > > *** Please download, test, and vote on this release. This vote will
> >> stay
> >> > > open
> >> > > for at least 72 hours ***
> >> > >
> >> > > Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided
> >> for
> >> > > convenience.
> >> > >
> >> > > Source and binary files:
> >> > >
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.2-candidate-2/
> >> > >
> >> > > SHA-512 checksums:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> 563f65582c5307b4ef1e0322958ed19d7c181fb8bb8d7b8cab06ab0a6adb5520f7d18b6f97960b93c3318815529a8b8721e00e9cc9484532a2e5ed3221450094
> >> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-bin.tar.gz
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> 60d1049611b938b0ddc769132124d43820728afc8a06813a5ec9efc095c5497c59d9bbcaaf7df5b0c0e97e051d66f59c1f8ee08885d05ca2c635773e0283770a
> >> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-src.tar.gz
> >> > >
> >> > > Maven staging repo:
> >> > >
> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1136
> >> > >
> >> > > The tag to be voted upon:
> >> > > v2.9.2-candidate-2 (8a5d2253b888b3b865a2aedf635d6727777821c7)
> >> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.9.2-candidate-2
> >> > >
> >> > > Pulsar's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> >> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/KEYS
> >> > >
> >> > > Please download the source package, and follow the README to build
> >> > > and run the Pulsar standalone service.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Nicolò Boschi
> >>
> >

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>]

+1 (binding)

1. Checked the signature
2. Build from the source successfully
3. Start standalone
4. Publish and consume successfully
5. Cassandra connect works well
6. Checked state function

And passed our internal integration tests.

Regards,
Penghui

On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 4:37 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:

> It's not a regression in 2.9.2, we should not block the 2.9.2 release.
> Instead, we can have the fix in 2.9.3.
>
> Penghui
>
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 8:42 PM Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ran, thanks for driving the release.
>>
>> I haven't tested the rc yet but I firmly believe we should include this
>> pull [1] which fixes a regression introduced in Pulsar 2.9.0
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
>>
>>
>>
>> Il giorno mer 2 feb 2022 alle ore 08:34 Enrico Olivelli <
>> eolivelli@gmail.com>
>> ha scritto:
>>
>> > (sorry for the late reply, I am still testing, I had some other
>> > priorities).
>> >
>> > I hope that the community will test this RC and report back
>> >
>> >
>> > Enrico
>> >
>> > Il giorno mar 25 gen 2022 alle ore 15:07 Ran Gao <rg...@apache.org> ha
>> > scritto:
>> > >
>> > > Sorry, the 2.9.2 release candidate-1 has a wrong sign certificate.
>> > >
>> > > This is the second release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.9.2.
>> > >
>> > > *** Please download, test, and vote on this release. This vote will
>> stay
>> > > open
>> > > for at least 72 hours ***
>> > >
>> > > Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided
>> for
>> > > convenience.
>> > >
>> > > Source and binary files:
>> > >
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.2-candidate-2/
>> > >
>> > > SHA-512 checksums:
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> 563f65582c5307b4ef1e0322958ed19d7c181fb8bb8d7b8cab06ab0a6adb5520f7d18b6f97960b93c3318815529a8b8721e00e9cc9484532a2e5ed3221450094
>> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-bin.tar.gz
>> > >
>> >
>> 60d1049611b938b0ddc769132124d43820728afc8a06813a5ec9efc095c5497c59d9bbcaaf7df5b0c0e97e051d66f59c1f8ee08885d05ca2c635773e0283770a
>> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-src.tar.gz
>> > >
>> > > Maven staging repo:
>> > >
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1136
>> > >
>> > > The tag to be voted upon:
>> > > v2.9.2-candidate-2 (8a5d2253b888b3b865a2aedf635d6727777821c7)
>> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.9.2-candidate-2
>> > >
>> > > Pulsar's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
>> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/KEYS
>> > >
>> > > Please download the source package, and follow the README to build
>> > > and run the Pulsar standalone service.
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nicolò Boschi
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>]

It's not a regression in 2.9.2, we should not block the 2.9.2 release.
Instead, we can have the fix in 2.9.3.

Penghui

On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 8:42 PM Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ran, thanks for driving the release.
>
> I haven't tested the rc yet but I firmly believe we should include this
> pull [1] which fixes a regression introduced in Pulsar 2.9.0
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
>
>
>
> Il giorno mer 2 feb 2022 alle ore 08:34 Enrico Olivelli <
> eolivelli@gmail.com>
> ha scritto:
>
> > (sorry for the late reply, I am still testing, I had some other
> > priorities).
> >
> > I hope that the community will test this RC and report back
> >
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> > Il giorno mar 25 gen 2022 alle ore 15:07 Ran Gao <rg...@apache.org> ha
> > scritto:
> > >
> > > Sorry, the 2.9.2 release candidate-1 has a wrong sign certificate.
> > >
> > > This is the second release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.9.2.
> > >
> > > *** Please download, test, and vote on this release. This vote will
> stay
> > > open
> > > for at least 72 hours ***
> > >
> > > Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided
> for
> > > convenience.
> > >
> > > Source and binary files:
> > >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.2-candidate-2/
> > >
> > > SHA-512 checksums:
> > >
> > >
> >
> 563f65582c5307b4ef1e0322958ed19d7c181fb8bb8d7b8cab06ab0a6adb5520f7d18b6f97960b93c3318815529a8b8721e00e9cc9484532a2e5ed3221450094
> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-bin.tar.gz
> > >
> >
> 60d1049611b938b0ddc769132124d43820728afc8a06813a5ec9efc095c5497c59d9bbcaaf7df5b0c0e97e051d66f59c1f8ee08885d05ca2c635773e0283770a
> > >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-src.tar.gz
> > >
> > > Maven staging repo:
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1136
> > >
> > > The tag to be voted upon:
> > > v2.9.2-candidate-2 (8a5d2253b888b3b865a2aedf635d6727777821c7)
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.9.2-candidate-2
> > >
> > > Pulsar's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/KEYS
> > >
> > > Please download the source package, and follow the README to build
> > > and run the Pulsar standalone service.
> >
>
>
> --
> Nicolò Boschi
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com>]

Hi Ran, thanks for driving the release.

I haven't tested the rc yet but I firmly believe we should include this
pull [1] which fixes a regression introduced in Pulsar 2.9.0

[1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097



Il giorno mer 2 feb 2022 alle ore 08:34 Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
ha scritto:

> (sorry for the late reply, I am still testing, I had some other
> priorities).
>
> I hope that the community will test this RC and report back
>
>
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno mar 25 gen 2022 alle ore 15:07 Ran Gao <rg...@apache.org> ha
> scritto:
> >
> > Sorry, the 2.9.2 release candidate-1 has a wrong sign certificate.
> >
> > This is the second release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.9.2.
> >
> > *** Please download, test, and vote on this release. This vote will stay
> > open
> > for at least 72 hours ***
> >
> > Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided for
> > convenience.
> >
> > Source and binary files:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.2-candidate-2/
> >
> > SHA-512 checksums:
> >
> >
> 563f65582c5307b4ef1e0322958ed19d7c181fb8bb8d7b8cab06ab0a6adb5520f7d18b6f97960b93c3318815529a8b8721e00e9cc9484532a2e5ed3221450094
> >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-bin.tar.gz
> >
> 60d1049611b938b0ddc769132124d43820728afc8a06813a5ec9efc095c5497c59d9bbcaaf7df5b0c0e97e051d66f59c1f8ee08885d05ca2c635773e0283770a
> >  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-src.tar.gz
> >
> > Maven staging repo:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1136
> >
> > The tag to be voted upon:
> > v2.9.2-candidate-2 (8a5d2253b888b3b865a2aedf635d6727777821c7)
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.9.2-candidate-2
> >
> > Pulsar's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/KEYS
> >
> > Please download the source package, and follow the README to build
> > and run the Pulsar standalone service.
>


-- 
Nicolò Boschi

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>]

(sorry for the late reply, I am still testing, I had some other priorities).

I hope that the community will test this RC and report back


Enrico

Il giorno mar 25 gen 2022 alle ore 15:07 Ran Gao <rg...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>
> Sorry, the 2.9.2 release candidate-1 has a wrong sign certificate.
>
> This is the second release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.9.2.
>
> *** Please download, test, and vote on this release. This vote will stay
> open
> for at least 72 hours ***
>
> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are provided for
> convenience.
>
> Source and binary files:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.2-candidate-2/
>
> SHA-512 checksums:
>
> 563f65582c5307b4ef1e0322958ed19d7c181fb8bb8d7b8cab06ab0a6adb5520f7d18b6f97960b93c3318815529a8b8721e00e9cc9484532a2e5ed3221450094
>  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-bin.tar.gz
> 60d1049611b938b0ddc769132124d43820728afc8a06813a5ec9efc095c5497c59d9bbcaaf7df5b0c0e97e051d66f59c1f8ee08885d05ca2c635773e0283770a
>  ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-src.tar.gz
>
> Maven staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1136
>
> The tag to be voted upon:
> v2.9.2-candidate-2 (8a5d2253b888b3b865a2aedf635d6727777821c7)
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.9.2-candidate-2
>
> Pulsar's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/KEYS
>
> Please download the source package, and follow the README to build
> and run the Pulsar standalone service.

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Ran Gao <rg...@apache.org>]

Yes, all necessary PRs are cherry-picked to branch-2.9, and the test pass, refer to https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commits/branch-2.9, I'm cutting the new RC from the current branch-2.9.

On 2022/02/15 14:57:25 Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Ran,
> Are we cutting the new RC from the current branch-2.9?
> 
> Enrico
> 
> Il Mar 15 Feb 2022, 14:57 PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> 
> > Hi Ran,
> >
> > I think all the PRs that block the 2.9.2 release are merged.
> > Could you please help cherry-pick the PRs and start a new RC?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 8:25 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Lari,
> > >
> > > We have another issue that needs to confirm if it will introduce break
> > > changes in 2.9.2,
> > > Expected to have a result tomorrow, it related to
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13383,
> > > We're doing more testing to make sure it doesn't introduce unexpected
> > > behavior.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Penghui
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 8:10 PM Lari Hotari <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> When is 2.9.2 Candidate 3 planned?
> > >> What changes will it include? All current changes in branch-2.9 ?
> > >> The version has already been set to 2.9.3-SNAPSHOT in branch-2.9 with
> > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14089 . If we do 2.9.2 with all
> > >> current changes from branch-2.9, the commit for PR 14089 would have to
> > be
> > >> reverted before the next release.
> > >> Another possibility is to skip 2.9.2 completely and proceed directly
> > with
> > >> 2.9.3 release.
> > >>
> > >> -Lari
> > >>
> > >> On 2022/02/11 08:28:58 PengHui Li wrote:
> > >> > Now, there is a regression introduced in 2.9.2
> > >> >
> > >> > I have pushed out the fix https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14231
> > ,
> > >> PTAL.
> > >> >
> > >> > -1 from my side
> > >> >
> > >> > Need to get the fix merged and roll out the new RC3 @Ran
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards,
> > >> > Penghui
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 9:54 PM Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Penghui,
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I didn't know that there were so many known bugs around transactions
> > >> > > scheduled for 2.9.3, my bad.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > However, as Enrico pointed out, the issue impacts Pulsar clients
> > that
> > >> are
> > >> > > not using the transactions, so we can't just say - ok, just another
> > >> bug
> > >> > > about transactions, it's not critical since they're not production
> > >> ready
> > >> > > (btw, where we state that they aren't production ready on the
> > >> > > documentation?).
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > The workaround you mentioned is not always viable, since you can
> > have
> > >> > > clients of different tenants/customers that are not using
> > transactions
> > >> > > while, at the same time, a little portion that are experiencing with
> > >> them.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I agree that it is uncommon to have only one message produced. On
> > the
> > >> other
> > >> > > hand, it's a very common case where other projects using Pulsar have
> > >> > > unit/integration tests that write only one message and expect to be
> > >> > > consumed (that's because they test the application logic and not
> > >> Pulsar).
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Given that, it's fair to say that 2.9.2 is not worse than 2.9.1, so,
> > >> > > finally, we can go ahead.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Looking forward to see 2.9.3 soon
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I tested the artifacts, so I'll put my vote here:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > +1 (non binding)
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Checks:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > - Checksum and signatures
> > >> > >
> > >> > > - Apache Rat check passes
> > >> > >
> > >> > > - Compile from source w JDK11
> > >> > >
> > >> > > - Build docker image from source
> > >> > >
> > >> > > - Run Pulsar standalone and produce-consume from CLI
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > BR,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Nicolò
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 13:39 PengHui Li <
> > >> penghui@apache.org>
> > >> > > ha
> > >> > > scritto:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > > Please go ahead with the release, I won't VOTE on this thread.
> > >> > > > But I hope we can follow up soon with a new release, otherwise due
> > >> to
> > >> > > that
> > >> > > > bug
> > >> > > > you cannot enable transactions on your Pulsar cluster if you have
> > to
> > >> > > > support Pulsar client that do not enable transactions
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Yes, agree. We will follow up the 2.9.3 soon. There are other
> > >> > > > ongoing transaction fixes
> > >> > > > we will complete them ASAP and provide a version with certain
> > >> guarantees
> > >> > > > for transaction stability.
> > >> > > > We are doing lots of tests these days, 2.9.3 should be a good
> > >> version for
> > >> > > > transactions.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > Penghui
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:37 PM Lin Lin <li...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > +1(binding)
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > 1. Checked the signature
> > >> > > > > 2. Start standalone
> > >> > > > > 3. Publish and consume successfully
> > >> > > > > 4. Checked function
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > Nicolò Boschi
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> 

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>]

Ran,
Are we cutting the new RC from the current branch-2.9?

Enrico

Il Mar 15 Feb 2022, 14:57 PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:

> Hi Ran,
>
> I think all the PRs that block the 2.9.2 release are merged.
> Could you please help cherry-pick the PRs and start a new RC?
>
> Thanks,
> Penghui
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 8:25 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Lari,
> >
> > We have another issue that needs to confirm if it will introduce break
> > changes in 2.9.2,
> > Expected to have a result tomorrow, it related to
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13383,
> > We're doing more testing to make sure it doesn't introduce unexpected
> > behavior.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 8:10 PM Lari Hotari <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> When is 2.9.2 Candidate 3 planned?
> >> What changes will it include? All current changes in branch-2.9 ?
> >> The version has already been set to 2.9.3-SNAPSHOT in branch-2.9 with
> >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14089 . If we do 2.9.2 with all
> >> current changes from branch-2.9, the commit for PR 14089 would have to
> be
> >> reverted before the next release.
> >> Another possibility is to skip 2.9.2 completely and proceed directly
> with
> >> 2.9.3 release.
> >>
> >> -Lari
> >>
> >> On 2022/02/11 08:28:58 PengHui Li wrote:
> >> > Now, there is a regression introduced in 2.9.2
> >> >
> >> > I have pushed out the fix https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14231
> ,
> >> PTAL.
> >> >
> >> > -1 from my side
> >> >
> >> > Need to get the fix merged and roll out the new RC3 @Ran
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Penghui
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 9:54 PM Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Penghui,
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > I didn't know that there were so many known bugs around transactions
> >> > > scheduled for 2.9.3, my bad.
> >> > >
> >> > > However, as Enrico pointed out, the issue impacts Pulsar clients
> that
> >> are
> >> > > not using the transactions, so we can't just say - ok, just another
> >> bug
> >> > > about transactions, it's not critical since they're not production
> >> ready
> >> > > (btw, where we state that they aren't production ready on the
> >> > > documentation?).
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > The workaround you mentioned is not always viable, since you can
> have
> >> > > clients of different tenants/customers that are not using
> transactions
> >> > > while, at the same time, a little portion that are experiencing with
> >> them.
> >> > >
> >> > > I agree that it is uncommon to have only one message produced. On
> the
> >> other
> >> > > hand, it's a very common case where other projects using Pulsar have
> >> > > unit/integration tests that write only one message and expect to be
> >> > > consumed (that's because they test the application logic and not
> >> Pulsar).
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Given that, it's fair to say that 2.9.2 is not worse than 2.9.1, so,
> >> > > finally, we can go ahead.
> >> > >
> >> > > Looking forward to see 2.9.3 soon
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > I tested the artifacts, so I'll put my vote here:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > +1 (non binding)
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Checks:
> >> > >
> >> > > - Checksum and signatures
> >> > >
> >> > > - Apache Rat check passes
> >> > >
> >> > > - Compile from source w JDK11
> >> > >
> >> > > - Build docker image from source
> >> > >
> >> > > - Run Pulsar standalone and produce-consume from CLI
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > BR,
> >> > >
> >> > > Nicolò
> >> > >
> >> > > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 13:39 PengHui Li <
> >> penghui@apache.org>
> >> > > ha
> >> > > scritto:
> >> > >
> >> > > > > Please go ahead with the release, I won't VOTE on this thread.
> >> > > > But I hope we can follow up soon with a new release, otherwise due
> >> to
> >> > > that
> >> > > > bug
> >> > > > you cannot enable transactions on your Pulsar cluster if you have
> to
> >> > > > support Pulsar client that do not enable transactions
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Yes, agree. We will follow up the 2.9.3 soon. There are other
> >> > > > ongoing transaction fixes
> >> > > > we will complete them ASAP and provide a version with certain
> >> guarantees
> >> > > > for transaction stability.
> >> > > > We are doing lots of tests these days, 2.9.3 should be a good
> >> version for
> >> > > > transactions.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > Penghui
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:37 PM Lin Lin <li...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > +1(binding)
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 1. Checked the signature
> >> > > > > 2. Start standalone
> >> > > > > 3. Publish and consume successfully
> >> > > > > 4. Checked function
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Nicolò Boschi
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>]

Hi Ran,

I think all the PRs that block the 2.9.2 release are merged.
Could you please help cherry-pick the PRs and start a new RC?

Thanks,
Penghui

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 8:25 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Lari,
>
> We have another issue that needs to confirm if it will introduce break
> changes in 2.9.2,
> Expected to have a result tomorrow, it related to
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13383,
> We're doing more testing to make sure it doesn't introduce unexpected
> behavior.
>
> Regards,
> Penghui
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 8:10 PM Lari Hotari <lh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> When is 2.9.2 Candidate 3 planned?
>> What changes will it include? All current changes in branch-2.9 ?
>> The version has already been set to 2.9.3-SNAPSHOT in branch-2.9 with
>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14089 . If we do 2.9.2 with all
>> current changes from branch-2.9, the commit for PR 14089 would have to be
>> reverted before the next release.
>> Another possibility is to skip 2.9.2 completely and proceed directly with
>> 2.9.3 release.
>>
>> -Lari
>>
>> On 2022/02/11 08:28:58 PengHui Li wrote:
>> > Now, there is a regression introduced in 2.9.2
>> >
>> > I have pushed out the fix https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14231,
>> PTAL.
>> >
>> > -1 from my side
>> >
>> > Need to get the fix merged and roll out the new RC3 @Ran
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Penghui
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 9:54 PM Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Penghui,
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I didn't know that there were so many known bugs around transactions
>> > > scheduled for 2.9.3, my bad.
>> > >
>> > > However, as Enrico pointed out, the issue impacts Pulsar clients that
>> are
>> > > not using the transactions, so we can't just say - ok, just another
>> bug
>> > > about transactions, it's not critical since they're not production
>> ready
>> > > (btw, where we state that they aren't production ready on the
>> > > documentation?).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > The workaround you mentioned is not always viable, since you can have
>> > > clients of different tenants/customers that are not using transactions
>> > > while, at the same time, a little portion that are experiencing with
>> them.
>> > >
>> > > I agree that it is uncommon to have only one message produced. On the
>> other
>> > > hand, it's a very common case where other projects using Pulsar have
>> > > unit/integration tests that write only one message and expect to be
>> > > consumed (that's because they test the application logic and not
>> Pulsar).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Given that, it's fair to say that 2.9.2 is not worse than 2.9.1, so,
>> > > finally, we can go ahead.
>> > >
>> > > Looking forward to see 2.9.3 soon
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I tested the artifacts, so I'll put my vote here:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > +1 (non binding)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Checks:
>> > >
>> > > - Checksum and signatures
>> > >
>> > > - Apache Rat check passes
>> > >
>> > > - Compile from source w JDK11
>> > >
>> > > - Build docker image from source
>> > >
>> > > - Run Pulsar standalone and produce-consume from CLI
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > BR,
>> > >
>> > > Nicolò
>> > >
>> > > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 13:39 PengHui Li <
>> penghui@apache.org>
>> > > ha
>> > > scritto:
>> > >
>> > > > > Please go ahead with the release, I won't VOTE on this thread.
>> > > > But I hope we can follow up soon with a new release, otherwise due
>> to
>> > > that
>> > > > bug
>> > > > you cannot enable transactions on your Pulsar cluster if you have to
>> > > > support Pulsar client that do not enable transactions
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes, agree. We will follow up the 2.9.3 soon. There are other
>> > > > ongoing transaction fixes
>> > > > we will complete them ASAP and provide a version with certain
>> guarantees
>> > > > for transaction stability.
>> > > > We are doing lots of tests these days, 2.9.3 should be a good
>> version for
>> > > > transactions.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > Penghui
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:37 PM Lin Lin <li...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > +1(binding)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 1. Checked the signature
>> > > > > 2. Start standalone
>> > > > > 3. Publish and consume successfully
>> > > > > 4. Checked function
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Nicolò Boschi
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>]

Hi Lari,

We have another issue that needs to confirm if it will introduce break
changes in 2.9.2,
Expected to have a result tomorrow, it related to
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/13383,
We're doing more testing to make sure it doesn't introduce unexpected
behavior.

Regards,
Penghui

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 8:10 PM Lari Hotari <lh...@apache.org> wrote:

> When is 2.9.2 Candidate 3 planned?
> What changes will it include? All current changes in branch-2.9 ?
> The version has already been set to 2.9.3-SNAPSHOT in branch-2.9 with
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14089 . If we do 2.9.2 with all
> current changes from branch-2.9, the commit for PR 14089 would have to be
> reverted before the next release.
> Another possibility is to skip 2.9.2 completely and proceed directly with
> 2.9.3 release.
>
> -Lari
>
> On 2022/02/11 08:28:58 PengHui Li wrote:
> > Now, there is a regression introduced in 2.9.2
> >
> > I have pushed out the fix https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14231,
> PTAL.
> >
> > -1 from my side
> >
> > Need to get the fix merged and roll out the new RC3 @Ran
> >
> > Regards,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 9:54 PM Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Penghui,
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't know that there were so many known bugs around transactions
> > > scheduled for 2.9.3, my bad.
> > >
> > > However, as Enrico pointed out, the issue impacts Pulsar clients that
> are
> > > not using the transactions, so we can't just say - ok, just another bug
> > > about transactions, it's not critical since they're not production
> ready
> > > (btw, where we state that they aren't production ready on the
> > > documentation?).
> > >
> > >
> > > The workaround you mentioned is not always viable, since you can have
> > > clients of different tenants/customers that are not using transactions
> > > while, at the same time, a little portion that are experiencing with
> them.
> > >
> > > I agree that it is uncommon to have only one message produced. On the
> other
> > > hand, it's a very common case where other projects using Pulsar have
> > > unit/integration tests that write only one message and expect to be
> > > consumed (that's because they test the application logic and not
> Pulsar).
> > >
> > >
> > > Given that, it's fair to say that 2.9.2 is not worse than 2.9.1, so,
> > > finally, we can go ahead.
> > >
> > > Looking forward to see 2.9.3 soon
> > >
> > >
> > > I tested the artifacts, so I'll put my vote here:
> > >
> > >
> > > +1 (non binding)
> > >
> > >
> > > Checks:
> > >
> > > - Checksum and signatures
> > >
> > > - Apache Rat check passes
> > >
> > > - Compile from source w JDK11
> > >
> > > - Build docker image from source
> > >
> > > - Run Pulsar standalone and produce-consume from CLI
> > >
> > >
> > > BR,
> > >
> > > Nicolò
> > >
> > > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 13:39 PengHui Li <
> penghui@apache.org>
> > > ha
> > > scritto:
> > >
> > > > > Please go ahead with the release, I won't VOTE on this thread.
> > > > But I hope we can follow up soon with a new release, otherwise due to
> > > that
> > > > bug
> > > > you cannot enable transactions on your Pulsar cluster if you have to
> > > > support Pulsar client that do not enable transactions
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, agree. We will follow up the 2.9.3 soon. There are other
> > > > ongoing transaction fixes
> > > > we will complete them ASAP and provide a version with certain
> guarantees
> > > > for transaction stability.
> > > > We are doing lots of tests these days, 2.9.3 should be a good
> version for
> > > > transactions.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Penghui
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:37 PM Lin Lin <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > +1(binding)
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Checked the signature
> > > > > 2. Start standalone
> > > > > 3. Publish and consume successfully
> > > > > 4. Checked function
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nicolò Boschi
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Lari Hotari <lh...@apache.org>]

When is 2.9.2 Candidate 3 planned?
What changes will it include? All current changes in branch-2.9 ?
The version has already been set to 2.9.3-SNAPSHOT in branch-2.9 with https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14089 . If we do 2.9.2 with all current changes from branch-2.9, the commit for PR 14089 would have to be reverted before the next release.
Another possibility is to skip 2.9.2 completely and proceed directly with 2.9.3 release.

-Lari

On 2022/02/11 08:28:58 PengHui Li wrote:
> Now, there is a regression introduced in 2.9.2
> 
> I have pushed out the fix https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14231, PTAL.
> 
> -1 from my side
> 
> Need to get the fix merged and roll out the new RC3 @Ran
> 
> Regards,
> Penghui
> 
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 9:54 PM Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Penghui,
> >
> >
> > I didn't know that there were so many known bugs around transactions
> > scheduled for 2.9.3, my bad.
> >
> > However, as Enrico pointed out, the issue impacts Pulsar clients that are
> > not using the transactions, so we can't just say - ok, just another bug
> > about transactions, it's not critical since they're not production ready
> > (btw, where we state that they aren't production ready on the
> > documentation?).
> >
> >
> > The workaround you mentioned is not always viable, since you can have
> > clients of different tenants/customers that are not using transactions
> > while, at the same time, a little portion that are experiencing with them.
> >
> > I agree that it is uncommon to have only one message produced. On the other
> > hand, it's a very common case where other projects using Pulsar have
> > unit/integration tests that write only one message and expect to be
> > consumed (that's because they test the application logic and not Pulsar).
> >
> >
> > Given that, it's fair to say that 2.9.2 is not worse than 2.9.1, so,
> > finally, we can go ahead.
> >
> > Looking forward to see 2.9.3 soon
> >
> >
> > I tested the artifacts, so I'll put my vote here:
> >
> >
> > +1 (non binding)
> >
> >
> > Checks:
> >
> > - Checksum and signatures
> >
> > - Apache Rat check passes
> >
> > - Compile from source w JDK11
> >
> > - Build docker image from source
> >
> > - Run Pulsar standalone and produce-consume from CLI
> >
> >
> > BR,
> >
> > Nicolò
> >
> > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 13:39 PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> > ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > > > Please go ahead with the release, I won't VOTE on this thread.
> > > But I hope we can follow up soon with a new release, otherwise due to
> > that
> > > bug
> > > you cannot enable transactions on your Pulsar cluster if you have to
> > > support Pulsar client that do not enable transactions
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, agree. We will follow up the 2.9.3 soon. There are other
> > > ongoing transaction fixes
> > > we will complete them ASAP and provide a version with certain guarantees
> > > for transaction stability.
> > > We are doing lots of tests these days, 2.9.3 should be a good version for
> > > transactions.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Penghui
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:37 PM Lin Lin <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > +1(binding)
> > > >
> > > > 1. Checked the signature
> > > > 2. Start standalone
> > > > 3. Publish and consume successfully
> > > > 4. Checked function
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nicolò Boschi
> >
> 

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>]

Now, there is a regression introduced in 2.9.2

I have pushed out the fix https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14231, PTAL.

-1 from my side

Need to get the fix merged and roll out the new RC3 @Ran

Regards,
Penghui

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 9:54 PM Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Penghui,
>
>
> I didn't know that there were so many known bugs around transactions
> scheduled for 2.9.3, my bad.
>
> However, as Enrico pointed out, the issue impacts Pulsar clients that are
> not using the transactions, so we can't just say - ok, just another bug
> about transactions, it's not critical since they're not production ready
> (btw, where we state that they aren't production ready on the
> documentation?).
>
>
> The workaround you mentioned is not always viable, since you can have
> clients of different tenants/customers that are not using transactions
> while, at the same time, a little portion that are experiencing with them.
>
> I agree that it is uncommon to have only one message produced. On the other
> hand, it's a very common case where other projects using Pulsar have
> unit/integration tests that write only one message and expect to be
> consumed (that's because they test the application logic and not Pulsar).
>
>
> Given that, it's fair to say that 2.9.2 is not worse than 2.9.1, so,
> finally, we can go ahead.
>
> Looking forward to see 2.9.3 soon
>
>
> I tested the artifacts, so I'll put my vote here:
>
>
> +1 (non binding)
>
>
> Checks:
>
> - Checksum and signatures
>
> - Apache Rat check passes
>
> - Compile from source w JDK11
>
> - Build docker image from source
>
> - Run Pulsar standalone and produce-consume from CLI
>
>
> BR,
>
> Nicolò
>
> Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 13:39 PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> ha
> scritto:
>
> > > Please go ahead with the release, I won't VOTE on this thread.
> > But I hope we can follow up soon with a new release, otherwise due to
> that
> > bug
> > you cannot enable transactions on your Pulsar cluster if you have to
> > support Pulsar client that do not enable transactions
> >
> >
> > Yes, agree. We will follow up the 2.9.3 soon. There are other
> > ongoing transaction fixes
> > we will complete them ASAP and provide a version with certain guarantees
> > for transaction stability.
> > We are doing lots of tests these days, 2.9.3 should be a good version for
> > transactions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Penghui
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:37 PM Lin Lin <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > +1(binding)
> > >
> > > 1. Checked the signature
> > > 2. Start standalone
> > > 3. Publish and consume successfully
> > > 4. Checked function
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Nicolò Boschi
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com>]

Penghui,


I didn't know that there were so many known bugs around transactions
scheduled for 2.9.3, my bad.

However, as Enrico pointed out, the issue impacts Pulsar clients that are
not using the transactions, so we can't just say - ok, just another bug
about transactions, it's not critical since they're not production ready
(btw, where we state that they aren't production ready on the
documentation?).


The workaround you mentioned is not always viable, since you can have
clients of different tenants/customers that are not using transactions
while, at the same time, a little portion that are experiencing with them.

I agree that it is uncommon to have only one message produced. On the other
hand, it's a very common case where other projects using Pulsar have
unit/integration tests that write only one message and expect to be
consumed (that's because they test the application logic and not Pulsar).


Given that, it's fair to say that 2.9.2 is not worse than 2.9.1, so,
finally, we can go ahead.

Looking forward to see 2.9.3 soon


I tested the artifacts, so I'll put my vote here:


+1 (non binding)


Checks:

- Checksum and signatures

- Apache Rat check passes

- Compile from source w JDK11

- Build docker image from source

- Run Pulsar standalone and produce-consume from CLI


BR,

Nicolò

Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 13:39 PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> ha
scritto:

> > Please go ahead with the release, I won't VOTE on this thread.
> But I hope we can follow up soon with a new release, otherwise due to that
> bug
> you cannot enable transactions on your Pulsar cluster if you have to
> support Pulsar client that do not enable transactions
>
>
> Yes, agree. We will follow up the 2.9.3 soon. There are other
> ongoing transaction fixes
> we will complete them ASAP and provide a version with certain guarantees
> for transaction stability.
> We are doing lots of tests these days, 2.9.3 should be a good version for
> transactions.
>
> Thanks,
> Penghui
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:37 PM Lin Lin <li...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > +1(binding)
> >
> > 1. Checked the signature
> > 2. Start standalone
> > 3. Publish and consume successfully
> > 4. Checked function
> >
>


-- 
Nicolò Boschi

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>]

> Please go ahead with the release, I won't VOTE on this thread.
But I hope we can follow up soon with a new release, otherwise due to that
bug
you cannot enable transactions on your Pulsar cluster if you have to
support Pulsar client that do not enable transactions


Yes, agree. We will follow up the 2.9.3 soon. There are other
ongoing transaction fixes
we will complete them ASAP and provide a version with certain guarantees
for transaction stability.
We are doing lots of tests these days, 2.9.3 should be a good version for
transactions.

Thanks,
Penghui


On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:37 PM Lin Lin <li...@apache.org> wrote:

>
>
> +1(binding)
>
> 1. Checked the signature
> 2. Start standalone
> 3. Publish and consume successfully
> 4. Checked function
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Lin Lin <li...@apache.org>]

+1(binding)

1. Checked the signature
2. Start standalone
3. Publish and consume successfully
4. Checked function

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>]

Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 11:25 PengHui Li
<pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>
> > wow, this is incredible, we really should slow down in cherry-picking
> stuff to release branches.
> But this is off-topic, as this is a VOTE thread.
>
> Yes, as discussed here
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/b4wr2chgdrqjgjq4omf6mtfc3g2f9cnx
> 2.9.1 almost equals 2.9.0, 2.9.1 contains the security issue fixes,
> but without any other issue fixes(Includes fixes for some serious issues)
> so commits in 2.9.2 is from 2.9.0 to 2.9.2 lasted more than 2 months.
>
> Most of the PRs cherry-picked to branch-2.9 are bug fixes or important
> enhancements
> such as performance issues. The reason is not we cherry-picked too fast,
> is released too slow. The slower we publish, users have to build by
> themselves,
> if we slow down the cherry-picking, ignore some fixes, this is tantamount
> to pushing users
> to a situation where they maintain their own branches.
> This is definitely not what we want to see.
>
> We should carefully consider whether is it worth delaying the release,
> Explain again, https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 is happening in
> specific conditions,
> This often does not occur with the normal use of topics, only for the topic
> will not get a new message.
> The data will not be lost, and we have a way to work around it.l


Please go ahead with the release, I won't VOTE on this thread.
But I hope we can follow up soon with a new release, otherwise due to that bug
you cannot enable transactions on your Pulsar cluster if you have to
support Pulsar client that do not enable transactions

Enrico



>
> Penghui
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 5:03 PM Hang Chen <ch...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Enrico,
> >      In my opinion, the transactions is still in developing state and
> > not stable yet. For those critical bug fixes, we'd better prepare
> > 2.9.3 release earlier instead of blocking the current 2.9.2 release.
> > Otherwise, if we make new release candidate for any new find bugs, It
> > will be a huge task for the release manager and make the release
> > process delay too much time.
> >      I suggest to move them to 2.9.3 instead of blocking the 2.9.2 release.
> >
> > Best,
> > Hang
> >
> > Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> 于2022年2月10日周四 16:15写道：
> > >
> > > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 08:39 PengHui Li
> > > <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > Enrico,
> > > >
> > > > There are 40 closed PRs
> > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.3+is%3Aclosed
> > > > and most of them cherry-picked to branch-2.9, so you mean the 2.9.2
> > >
> > > wow, this is incredible, we really should slow down in cherry-picking
> > > stuff to release branches.
> > > But this is off-topic, as this is a VOTE thread.
> > >
> > > > contains all of them? or just contain
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 ?
> > > > I have no objection if we roll out the new RC based on current
> > branch-2.9
> > > > since
> > > > there are some critical fixes for transactions(Of course, I don't think
> > > > there will be any problems moving them to 2.9.3)
> > > > If only for https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192, I don't
> > think it's
> > > > necessary to roll out the new RC.
> > >
> > > I believe it is better to cut a new release candidate out of branch-2.9
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Penghui
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:28 PM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Gao,
> > > > > The patch https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 has been
> > merged.
> > > > > I believe that is better to roll out a new RC and have Pulsar 2.9.2
> > > > > released
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the good discussion
> > > > >
> > > > > Enrico
> > > > >
> > > > > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 05:11 PengHui Li
> > > > > <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It should not be a blocking issue, as I mentioned before we can
> > work
> > > > > around
> > > > > > and the issue happens for specific conditions
> > > > > > And there are some other ongoing transaction fixes, for
> > transactions
> > > > > using
> > > > > > the latest branch-2.9 is the best option, not 2.9.2 even contain
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I suggest moving forward with the 2.9.2 release and focusing on
> > the
> > > > > > transaction fixes in 2.9.3.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Penghui
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:02 AM Lin Lin <li...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My personal opinion:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If this is a blocking issue, we should tag the issue and raise
> > it in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > discussion stage, not in the final release stage, which will
> > waste a
> > > > > lot of
> > > > > > > time of the release manager. But I see this issue is already
> > closed.
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We can evaluate the repair time of this issue. If it does not
> > take too
> > > > > > > much time, I think it can be merged into 2.9.2. If it is too
> > late, I
> > > > > > > suggest move it to 2.9.3, since there are other serious issues
> > waiting
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > be released, we can run in small steps.
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> >

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>]

> wow, this is incredible, we really should slow down in cherry-picking
stuff to release branches.
But this is off-topic, as this is a VOTE thread.

Yes, as discussed here
https://lists.apache.org/thread/b4wr2chgdrqjgjq4omf6mtfc3g2f9cnx
2.9.1 almost equals 2.9.0, 2.9.1 contains the security issue fixes,
but without any other issue fixes(Includes fixes for some serious issues)
so commits in 2.9.2 is from 2.9.0 to 2.9.2 lasted more than 2 months.

Most of the PRs cherry-picked to branch-2.9 are bug fixes or important
enhancements
such as performance issues. The reason is not we cherry-picked too fast,
is released too slow. The slower we publish, users have to build by
themselves,
if we slow down the cherry-picking, ignore some fixes, this is tantamount
to pushing users
to a situation where they maintain their own branches.
This is definitely not what we want to see.

We should carefully consider whether is it worth delaying the release,
Explain again, https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 is happening in
specific conditions,
This often does not occur with the normal use of topics, only for the topic
will not get a new message.
The data will not be lost, and we have a way to work around it.

Penghui

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 5:03 PM Hang Chen <ch...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Enrico,
>      In my opinion, the transactions is still in developing state and
> not stable yet. For those critical bug fixes, we'd better prepare
> 2.9.3 release earlier instead of blocking the current 2.9.2 release.
> Otherwise, if we make new release candidate for any new find bugs, It
> will be a huge task for the release manager and make the release
> process delay too much time.
>      I suggest to move them to 2.9.3 instead of blocking the 2.9.2 release.
>
> Best,
> Hang
>
> Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> 于2022年2月10日周四 16:15写道：
> >
> > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 08:39 PengHui Li
> > <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > Enrico,
> > >
> > > There are 40 closed PRs
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.3+is%3Aclosed
> > > and most of them cherry-picked to branch-2.9, so you mean the 2.9.2
> >
> > wow, this is incredible, we really should slow down in cherry-picking
> > stuff to release branches.
> > But this is off-topic, as this is a VOTE thread.
> >
> > > contains all of them? or just contain
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 ?
> > > I have no objection if we roll out the new RC based on current
> branch-2.9
> > > since
> > > there are some critical fixes for transactions(Of course, I don't think
> > > there will be any problems moving them to 2.9.3)
> > > If only for https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192, I don't
> think it's
> > > necessary to roll out the new RC.
> >
> > I believe it is better to cut a new release candidate out of branch-2.9
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Penghui
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:28 PM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gao,
> > > > The patch https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 has been
> merged.
> > > > I believe that is better to roll out a new RC and have Pulsar 2.9.2
> > > > released
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the good discussion
> > > >
> > > > Enrico
> > > >
> > > > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 05:11 PengHui Li
> > > > <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > > > >
> > > > > It should not be a blocking issue, as I mentioned before we can
> work
> > > > around
> > > > > and the issue happens for specific conditions
> > > > > And there are some other ongoing transaction fixes, for
> transactions
> > > > using
> > > > > the latest branch-2.9 is the best option, not 2.9.2 even contain
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > > >
> > > > > So I suggest moving forward with the 2.9.2 release and focusing on
> the
> > > > > transaction fixes in 2.9.3.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Penghui
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:02 AM Lin Lin <li...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My personal opinion:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If this is a blocking issue, we should tag the issue and raise
> it in
> > > > the
> > > > > > discussion stage, not in the final release stage, which will
> waste a
> > > > lot of
> > > > > > time of the release manager. But I see this issue is already
> closed.
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can evaluate the repair time of this issue. If it does not
> take too
> > > > > > much time, I think it can be merged into 2.9.2. If it is too
> late, I
> > > > > > suggest move it to 2.9.3, since there are other serious issues
> waiting
> > > > to
> > > > > > be released, we can run in small steps.
> > > > > >
> > > >
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Hang Chen <ch...@apache.org>]

Hi Enrico,
     In my opinion, the transactions is still in developing state and
not stable yet. For those critical bug fixes, we'd better prepare
2.9.3 release earlier instead of blocking the current 2.9.2 release.
Otherwise, if we make new release candidate for any new find bugs, It
will be a huge task for the release manager and make the release
process delay too much time.
     I suggest to move them to 2.9.3 instead of blocking the 2.9.2 release.

Best,
Hang

Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> 于2022年2月10日周四 16:15写道：
>
> Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 08:39 PengHui Li
> <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> >
> > Enrico,
> >
> > There are 40 closed PRs
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.3+is%3Aclosed
> > and most of them cherry-picked to branch-2.9, so you mean the 2.9.2
>
> wow, this is incredible, we really should slow down in cherry-picking
> stuff to release branches.
> But this is off-topic, as this is a VOTE thread.
>
> > contains all of them? or just contain
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 ?
> > I have no objection if we roll out the new RC based on current branch-2.9
> > since
> > there are some critical fixes for transactions(Of course, I don't think
> > there will be any problems moving them to 2.9.3)
> > If only for https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192, I don't think it's
> > necessary to roll out the new RC.
>
> I believe it is better to cut a new release candidate out of branch-2.9
>
> Enrico
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:28 PM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Gao,
> > > The patch https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 has been merged.
> > > I believe that is better to roll out a new RC and have Pulsar 2.9.2
> > > released
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the good discussion
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 05:11 PengHui Li
> > > <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > It should not be a blocking issue, as I mentioned before we can work
> > > around
> > > > and the issue happens for specific conditions
> > > > And there are some other ongoing transaction fixes, for transactions
> > > using
> > > > the latest branch-2.9 is the best option, not 2.9.2 even contain
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > >
> > > > So I suggest moving forward with the 2.9.2 release and focusing on the
> > > > transaction fixes in 2.9.3.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Penghui
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:02 AM Lin Lin <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My personal opinion:
> > > > >
> > > > > If this is a blocking issue, we should tag the issue and raise it in
> > > the
> > > > > discussion stage, not in the final release stage, which will waste a
> > > lot of
> > > > > time of the release manager. But I see this issue is already closed.
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > > >
> > > > > We can evaluate the repair time of this issue. If it does not take too
> > > > > much time, I think it can be merged into 2.9.2. If it is too late, I
> > > > > suggest move it to 2.9.3, since there are other serious issues waiting
> > > to
> > > > > be released, we can run in small steps.
> > > > >
> > >

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>]

Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 08:39 PengHui Li
<pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>
> Enrico,
>
> There are 40 closed PRs
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.3+is%3Aclosed
> and most of them cherry-picked to branch-2.9, so you mean the 2.9.2

wow, this is incredible, we really should slow down in cherry-picking
stuff to release branches.
But this is off-topic, as this is a VOTE thread.

> contains all of them? or just contain
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 ?
> I have no objection if we roll out the new RC based on current branch-2.9
> since
> there are some critical fixes for transactions(Of course, I don't think
> there will be any problems moving them to 2.9.3)
> If only for https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192, I don't think it's
> necessary to roll out the new RC.

I believe it is better to cut a new release candidate out of branch-2.9

Enrico

>
> Thanks,
> Penghui
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:28 PM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Gao,
> > The patch https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 has been merged.
> > I believe that is better to roll out a new RC and have Pulsar 2.9.2
> > released
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the good discussion
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 05:11 PengHui Li
> > <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > It should not be a blocking issue, as I mentioned before we can work
> > around
> > > and the issue happens for specific conditions
> > > And there are some other ongoing transaction fixes, for transactions
> > using
> > > the latest branch-2.9 is the best option, not 2.9.2 even contain
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > >
> > > So I suggest moving forward with the 2.9.2 release and focusing on the
> > > transaction fixes in 2.9.3.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Penghui
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:02 AM Lin Lin <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > My personal opinion:
> > > >
> > > > If this is a blocking issue, we should tag the issue and raise it in
> > the
> > > > discussion stage, not in the final release stage, which will waste a
> > lot of
> > > > time of the release manager. But I see this issue is already closed.
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > >
> > > > We can evaluate the repair time of this issue. If it does not take too
> > > > much time, I think it can be merged into 2.9.2. If it is too late, I
> > > > suggest move it to 2.9.3, since there are other serious issues waiting
> > to
> > > > be released, we can run in small steps.
> > > >
> >

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>]

Enrico,

There are 40 closed PRs
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.3+is%3Aclosed
and most of them cherry-picked to branch-2.9, so you mean the 2.9.2
contains all of them? or just contain
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 ?
I have no objection if we roll out the new RC based on current branch-2.9
since
there are some critical fixes for transactions(Of course, I don't think
there will be any problems moving them to 2.9.3)
If only for https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192, I don't think it's
necessary to roll out the new RC.

Thanks,
Penghui

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:28 PM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gao,
> The patch https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 has been merged.
> I believe that is better to roll out a new RC and have Pulsar 2.9.2
> released
>
>
> Thanks for the good discussion
>
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 05:11 PengHui Li
> <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> >
> > It should not be a blocking issue, as I mentioned before we can work
> around
> > and the issue happens for specific conditions
> > And there are some other ongoing transaction fixes, for transactions
> using
> > the latest branch-2.9 is the best option, not 2.9.2 even contain
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> >
> > So I suggest moving forward with the 2.9.2 release and focusing on the
> > transaction fixes in 2.9.3.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:02 AM Lin Lin <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > My personal opinion:
> > >
> > > If this is a blocking issue, we should tag the issue and raise it in
> the
> > > discussion stage, not in the final release stage, which will waste a
> lot of
> > > time of the release manager. But I see this issue is already closed.
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > >
> > > We can evaluate the repair time of this issue. If it does not take too
> > > much time, I think it can be merged into 2.9.2. If it is too late, I
> > > suggest move it to 2.9.3, since there are other serious issues waiting
> to
> > > be released, we can run in small steps.
> > >
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>]

Gao,
The patch https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 has been merged.
I believe that is better to roll out a new RC and have Pulsar 2.9.2 released


Thanks for the good discussion

Enrico

Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 05:11 PengHui Li
<pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>
> It should not be a blocking issue, as I mentioned before we can work around
> and the issue happens for specific conditions
> And there are some other ongoing transaction fixes, for transactions using
> the latest branch-2.9 is the best option, not 2.9.2 even contain
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
>
> So I suggest moving forward with the 2.9.2 release and focusing on the
> transaction fixes in 2.9.3.
>
> Regards,
> Penghui
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:02 AM Lin Lin <li...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > My personal opinion:
> >
> > If this is a blocking issue, we should tag the issue and raise it in the
> > discussion stage, not in the final release stage, which will waste a lot of
> > time of the release manager. But I see this issue is already closed.
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> >
> > We can evaluate the repair time of this issue. If it does not take too
> > much time, I think it can be merged into 2.9.2. If it is too late, I
> > suggest move it to 2.9.3, since there are other serious issues waiting to
> > be released, we can run in small steps.
> >

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>]

It should not be a blocking issue, as I mentioned before we can work around
and the issue happens for specific conditions
And there are some other ongoing transaction fixes, for transactions using
the latest branch-2.9 is the best option, not 2.9.2 even contain
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097

So I suggest moving forward with the 2.9.2 release and focusing on the
transaction fixes in 2.9.3.

Regards,
Penghui

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:02 AM Lin Lin <li...@apache.org> wrote:

>
> My personal opinion:
>
> If this is a blocking issue, we should tag the issue and raise it in the
> discussion stage, not in the final release stage, which will waste a lot of
> time of the release manager. But I see this issue is already closed.
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
>
> We can evaluate the repair time of this issue. If it does not take too
> much time, I think it can be merged into 2.9.2. If it is too late, I
> suggest move it to 2.9.3, since there are other serious issues waiting to
> be released, we can run in small steps.
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Lin Lin <li...@apache.org>]

My personal opinion:

If this is a blocking issue, we should tag the issue and raise it in the discussion stage, not in the final release stage, which will waste a lot of time of the release manager. But I see this issue is already closed.
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097

We can evaluate the repair time of this issue. If it does not take too much time, I think it can be merged into 2.9.2. If it is too late, I suggest move it to 2.9.3, since there are other serious issues waiting to be released, we can run in small steps.