You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pulsar.apache.org by Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org> on 2022/02/15 04:55:51 UTC
[VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.8.3 Candidate 1
This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.8.3.
It fixes the following issues:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.8.2...v2.8.3-candidate-1
*** 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-2.8.3-candidate-1/
SHA-512 checksums:
b9d48a92404bacb0505406f57974c9e1ceecfede12cdc286656dbf1ee75c204c0af67540945a5d7b0fb1e295b6f06317444932359fd9af29d4ee8ceefa13f0ee
apache-pulsar-2.8.3-bin.tar.gz
d31ee747ba2a796230dd052994214028761813057967e92599dcf51e1b64726178b5ba6e3676cc5e947d60ee0411b0f02cb1ffcd91ba8a4138d220bbec7b6731
apache-pulsar-2.8.3-src.tar.gz
Unofficial Docker images:
michaelmarshall/pulsar:2.8.3-rc1
michaelmarshall/pulsar-all:2.8.3-rc1
michaelmarshall/pulsar-standalone:2.8.3-rc1
michaelmarshall/pulsar-grafana:2.8.3-rc1
Maven staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1139/
The tag to be voted upon:
v2.8.3-candidate-1 (f3234374b50ae25d5afc9e882d1e3eb50a79fffd)
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.8.3-candidate-1
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 2.8.3 Candidate 1
Posted by PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>.
Thanks, Michael, looking forward to future collaboration.
Best,
Penghui
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 12:37 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Thanks for your reply, Penghui. I saw your note on that thread but
> didn't realize it affected 2.8.3.
>
> I absolutely did not mean to imply that you don't want to share here.
> I appreciate your many contributions to the community and the mailing
> list, and I look forward to future collaboration.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:58 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree that it can be non-trivial to determine if an issue is an
> > internal test or an upstream issue.
> >
> > My main point is that we should prefer early communication of
> > potential issues that affect pending releases and accept that the
> > issue might prove to be nothing more than a short delay in the release
> > cycle. The alternative is that a release manager completes the build
> > process, which takes several hours, then discovers a new candidate is
> > needed. There is still an inherent race condition for release creation
> > and validation, but early communication (and collaboration) might help
> > us avoid some of the cases where candidates are rejected immediately.
> >
> > I have explained here
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/m5so1scfok44hnd74436w100smn2vbh3
> > at 11/02/2022
> > Have you seen it? As I said before, I forget to update this thread,
> > I have declared at the first time that I respond to this thread.
> > it's not that I don't want to share to this thread.
> > I can't accept dave and you thinking I don't want to share here.
> > it's completely different
> >
> > > For what it's worth, I don't think you need to verify your test
> > correctness 100% before sharing potential issues that affect pending
> > releases. A quick note to the dev mailing list indicating that you're
> > investigating a potential issue would be sufficient and valuable.
> >
> > If I can't confirm the issue, what should I share?
> > Our failed tests happen every day due to different problems,
> > do I need to share them with the community every day?
> >
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 3:41 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I agree that it can be non-trivial to determine if an issue is an
> > > internal test or an upstream issue.
> > >
> > > My main point is that we should prefer early communication of
> > > potential issues that affect pending releases and accept that the
> > > issue might prove to be nothing more than a short delay in the release
> > > cycle. The alternative is that a release manager completes the build
> > > process, which takes several hours, then discovers a new candidate is
> > > needed. There is still an inherent race condition for release creation
> > > and validation, but early communication (and collaboration) might help
> > > us avoid some of the cases where candidates are rejected immediately.
> > >
> > > For what it's worth, I don't think you need to verify your test
> > > correctness 100% before sharing potential issues that affect pending
> > > releases. A quick note to the dev mailing list indicating that you're
> > > investigating a potential issue would be sufficient and valuable.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 6:30 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Just a friendly reminder that we are an open source project and
> other
> > > > community members who may have different internal testing may find
> better
> > > > fixes.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, dave. I know we are an open source project.
> > > > We found a problem in our internal test, we need to confirm it is not
> > > > the test issue right?
> > > >
> > > > Do you suggest that we discuss this in the email when we find our
> > > internal
> > > > test errors?
> > > > The community has no responsibility to deal with our internal testing
> > > bugs.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 8:04 AM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Feb 15, 2022, at 3:59 PM, PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I wonder if we should be more willing to share suspicions on the
> > > > > > mailing list when releases are actively being prepared. I would
> > > > > > have appreciated the notice, and I could have possibly helped
> > > > > > confirm the issue. On the other hand, I respect that it is hard
> to
> > > > > > know when to share a theory and when to test it out a bit more.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, It's just that these issues are happening in our internal
> > > testing
> > > > > > and we need to 100% confirm the issue and then share it out,
> > > > > > otherwise, We may confuse the contributors due to internal test
> > > problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just a friendly reminder that we are an open source project and
> other
> > > > > community members who may have different internal testing may find
> > > better
> > > > > fixes.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This kind of problem is often easy to fix, but difficult to
> > > troubleshoot.
> > > > > > So usually when you are 100% confirmed the issue, usually know
> how
> > > to fix
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I think these were not included because they were labeled after
> I
> > > > > > cherry picked PRs on Friday. I will take a look and try to cherry
> > > pick
> > > > > > all of those before tagging the next release candidate
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, I see. Thanks. I have checked
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commits/branch-2.8
> > > > > > LGTM.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Penghui
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:21 AM Michael Marshall <
> > > mmarshall@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Closing the vote with one -1 from Penghui.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
> > > > > >>> I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
> > > > > >>> to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I wonder if we should be more willing to share suspicions on the
> > > > > >> mailing list when releases are actively being prepared. I would
> > > > > >> have appreciated the notice, and I could have possibly helped
> > > > > >> confirm the issue. On the other hand, I respect that it is hard
> to
> > > > > >> know when to share a theory and when to test it out a bit more.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I think these were not included because they were labeled after
> I
> > > > > >> cherry picked PRs on Friday. I will take a look and try to
> cherry
> > > pick
> > > > > >> all of those before tagging the next release candidate.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> Michael
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:52 AM PengHui Li <penghui@apache.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Sorry Michael
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> There is a breaking change introduced in branch-2.8.
> > > > > >>> Sorry for that I forget to update the 2.8.3 release process,
> > > > > >>> Only update the context in 2.9.2 and 2.10.0.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
> > > > > >>> I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
> > > > > >>> to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> The fixed PR is https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14288
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
> > > > > >>> Please check the list
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.8.3+is%3Aclosed+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.8+
> > > > > >>> If they are not a requirement for 2.8.3, we can move it to the
> next
> > > > > >> version.
> > > > > >>> For https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14246, I can
> confirm,
> > > > > without
> > > > > >>> this fix, we will also introduce breaking change in 2.8.3
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I have to give my -1 here
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > > >>> Penghui
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:56 PM Michael Marshall <
> > > > > mmarshall@apache.org>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version
> > > 2.8.3.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> It fixes the following issues:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.8.2...v2.8.3-candidate-1
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> *** 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-2.8.3-candidate-1/
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> SHA-512 checksums:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> b9d48a92404bacb0505406f57974c9e1ceecfede12cdc286656dbf1ee75c204c0af67540945a5d7b0fb1e295b6f06317444932359fd9af29d4ee8ceefa13f0ee
> > > > > >>>> apache-pulsar-2.8.3-bin.tar.gz
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> d31ee747ba2a796230dd052994214028761813057967e92599dcf51e1b64726178b5ba6e3676cc5e947d60ee0411b0f02cb1ffcd91ba8a4138d220bbec7b6731
> > > > > >>>> apache-pulsar-2.8.3-src.tar.gz
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Unofficial Docker images:
> > > > > >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar:2.8.3-rc1
> > > > > >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-all:2.8.3-rc1
> > > > > >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-standalone:2.8.3-rc1
> > > > > >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-grafana:2.8.3-rc1
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Maven staging repo:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1139/
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> The tag to be voted upon:
> > > > > >>>> v2.8.3-candidate-1 (f3234374b50ae25d5afc9e882d1e3eb50a79fffd)
> > > > > >>>>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.8.3-candidate-1
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> 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 2.8.3 Candidate 1
Posted by Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>.
Thanks for your reply, Penghui. I saw your note on that thread but
didn't realize it affected 2.8.3.
I absolutely did not mean to imply that you don't want to share here.
I appreciate your many contributions to the community and the mailing
list, and I look forward to future collaboration.
Thanks,
Michael
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:58 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I agree that it can be non-trivial to determine if an issue is an
> internal test or an upstream issue.
>
> My main point is that we should prefer early communication of
> potential issues that affect pending releases and accept that the
> issue might prove to be nothing more than a short delay in the release
> cycle. The alternative is that a release manager completes the build
> process, which takes several hours, then discovers a new candidate is
> needed. There is still an inherent race condition for release creation
> and validation, but early communication (and collaboration) might help
> us avoid some of the cases where candidates are rejected immediately.
>
> I have explained here
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/m5so1scfok44hnd74436w100smn2vbh3
> at 11/02/2022
> Have you seen it? As I said before, I forget to update this thread,
> I have declared at the first time that I respond to this thread.
> it's not that I don't want to share to this thread.
> I can't accept dave and you thinking I don't want to share here.
> it's completely different
>
> > For what it's worth, I don't think you need to verify your test
> correctness 100% before sharing potential issues that affect pending
> releases. A quick note to the dev mailing list indicating that you're
> investigating a potential issue would be sufficient and valuable.
>
> If I can't confirm the issue, what should I share?
> Our failed tests happen every day due to different problems,
> do I need to share them with the community every day?
>
> Penghui
>
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 3:41 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I agree that it can be non-trivial to determine if an issue is an
> > internal test or an upstream issue.
> >
> > My main point is that we should prefer early communication of
> > potential issues that affect pending releases and accept that the
> > issue might prove to be nothing more than a short delay in the release
> > cycle. The alternative is that a release manager completes the build
> > process, which takes several hours, then discovers a new candidate is
> > needed. There is still an inherent race condition for release creation
> > and validation, but early communication (and collaboration) might help
> > us avoid some of the cases where candidates are rejected immediately.
> >
> > For what it's worth, I don't think you need to verify your test
> > correctness 100% before sharing potential issues that affect pending
> > releases. A quick note to the dev mailing list indicating that you're
> > investigating a potential issue would be sufficient and valuable.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 6:30 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just a friendly reminder that we are an open source project and other
> > > community members who may have different internal testing may find better
> > > fixes.
> > >
> > > Sorry, dave. I know we are an open source project.
> > > We found a problem in our internal test, we need to confirm it is not
> > > the test issue right?
> > >
> > > Do you suggest that we discuss this in the email when we find our
> > internal
> > > test errors?
> > > The community has no responsibility to deal with our internal testing
> > bugs.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 8:04 AM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Feb 15, 2022, at 3:59 PM, PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I wonder if we should be more willing to share suspicions on the
> > > > > mailing list when releases are actively being prepared. I would
> > > > > have appreciated the notice, and I could have possibly helped
> > > > > confirm the issue. On the other hand, I respect that it is hard to
> > > > > know when to share a theory and when to test it out a bit more.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, It's just that these issues are happening in our internal
> > testing
> > > > > and we need to 100% confirm the issue and then share it out,
> > > > > otherwise, We may confuse the contributors due to internal test
> > problems.
> > > >
> > > > Just a friendly reminder that we are an open source project and other
> > > > community members who may have different internal testing may find
> > better
> > > > fixes.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This kind of problem is often easy to fix, but difficult to
> > troubleshoot.
> > > > > So usually when you are 100% confirmed the issue, usually know how
> > to fix
> > > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > >> I think these were not included because they were labeled after I
> > > > > cherry picked PRs on Friday. I will take a look and try to cherry
> > pick
> > > > > all of those before tagging the next release candidate
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, I see. Thanks. I have checked
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commits/branch-2.8
> > > > > LGTM.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Penghui
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:21 AM Michael Marshall <
> > mmarshall@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Closing the vote with one -1 from Penghui.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
> > > > >>> I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
> > > > >>> to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I wonder if we should be more willing to share suspicions on the
> > > > >> mailing list when releases are actively being prepared. I would
> > > > >> have appreciated the notice, and I could have possibly helped
> > > > >> confirm the issue. On the other hand, I respect that it is hard to
> > > > >> know when to share a theory and when to test it out a bit more.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think these were not included because they were labeled after I
> > > > >> cherry picked PRs on Friday. I will take a look and try to cherry
> > pick
> > > > >> all of those before tagging the next release candidate.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Michael
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:52 AM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Sorry Michael
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> There is a breaking change introduced in branch-2.8.
> > > > >>> Sorry for that I forget to update the 2.8.3 release process,
> > > > >>> Only update the context in 2.9.2 and 2.10.0.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
> > > > >>> I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
> > > > >>> to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The fixed PR is https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14288
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
> > > > >>> Please check the list
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.8.3+is%3Aclosed+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.8+
> > > > >>> If they are not a requirement for 2.8.3, we can move it to the next
> > > > >> version.
> > > > >>> For https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14246, I can confirm,
> > > > without
> > > > >>> this fix, we will also introduce breaking change in 2.8.3
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I have to give my -1 here
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > >>> Penghui
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:56 PM Michael Marshall <
> > > > mmarshall@apache.org>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version
> > 2.8.3.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> It fixes the following issues:
> > > > >>>>
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.8.2...v2.8.3-candidate-1
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> *** 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-2.8.3-candidate-1/
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> SHA-512 checksums:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > b9d48a92404bacb0505406f57974c9e1ceecfede12cdc286656dbf1ee75c204c0af67540945a5d7b0fb1e295b6f06317444932359fd9af29d4ee8ceefa13f0ee
> > > > >>>> apache-pulsar-2.8.3-bin.tar.gz
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > d31ee747ba2a796230dd052994214028761813057967e92599dcf51e1b64726178b5ba6e3676cc5e947d60ee0411b0f02cb1ffcd91ba8a4138d220bbec7b6731
> > > > >>>> apache-pulsar-2.8.3-src.tar.gz
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Unofficial Docker images:
> > > > >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar:2.8.3-rc1
> > > > >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-all:2.8.3-rc1
> > > > >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-standalone:2.8.3-rc1
> > > > >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-grafana:2.8.3-rc1
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Maven staging repo:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1139/
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> The tag to be voted upon:
> > > > >>>> v2.8.3-candidate-1 (f3234374b50ae25d5afc9e882d1e3eb50a79fffd)
> > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.8.3-candidate-1
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> 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 2.8.3 Candidate 1
Posted by PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>.
> I agree that it can be non-trivial to determine if an issue is an
internal test or an upstream issue.
My main point is that we should prefer early communication of
potential issues that affect pending releases and accept that the
issue might prove to be nothing more than a short delay in the release
cycle. The alternative is that a release manager completes the build
process, which takes several hours, then discovers a new candidate is
needed. There is still an inherent race condition for release creation
and validation, but early communication (and collaboration) might help
us avoid some of the cases where candidates are rejected immediately.
I have explained here
https://lists.apache.org/thread/m5so1scfok44hnd74436w100smn2vbh3
at 11/02/2022
Have you seen it? As I said before, I forget to update this thread,
I have declared at the first time that I respond to this thread.
it's not that I don't want to share to this thread.
I can't accept dave and you thinking I don't want to share here.
it's completely different
> For what it's worth, I don't think you need to verify your test
correctness 100% before sharing potential issues that affect pending
releases. A quick note to the dev mailing list indicating that you're
investigating a potential issue would be sufficient and valuable.
If I can't confirm the issue, what should I share?
Our failed tests happen every day due to different problems,
do I need to share them with the community every day?
Penghui
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 3:41 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I agree that it can be non-trivial to determine if an issue is an
> internal test or an upstream issue.
>
> My main point is that we should prefer early communication of
> potential issues that affect pending releases and accept that the
> issue might prove to be nothing more than a short delay in the release
> cycle. The alternative is that a release manager completes the build
> process, which takes several hours, then discovers a new candidate is
> needed. There is still an inherent race condition for release creation
> and validation, but early communication (and collaboration) might help
> us avoid some of the cases where candidates are rejected immediately.
>
> For what it's worth, I don't think you need to verify your test
> correctness 100% before sharing potential issues that affect pending
> releases. A quick note to the dev mailing list indicating that you're
> investigating a potential issue would be sufficient and valuable.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 6:30 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Just a friendly reminder that we are an open source project and other
> > community members who may have different internal testing may find better
> > fixes.
> >
> > Sorry, dave. I know we are an open source project.
> > We found a problem in our internal test, we need to confirm it is not
> > the test issue right?
> >
> > Do you suggest that we discuss this in the email when we find our
> internal
> > test errors?
> > The community has no responsibility to deal with our internal testing
> bugs.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 8:04 AM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Feb 15, 2022, at 3:59 PM, PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I wonder if we should be more willing to share suspicions on the
> > > > mailing list when releases are actively being prepared. I would
> > > > have appreciated the notice, and I could have possibly helped
> > > > confirm the issue. On the other hand, I respect that it is hard to
> > > > know when to share a theory and when to test it out a bit more.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, It's just that these issues are happening in our internal
> testing
> > > > and we need to 100% confirm the issue and then share it out,
> > > > otherwise, We may confuse the contributors due to internal test
> problems.
> > >
> > > Just a friendly reminder that we are an open source project and other
> > > community members who may have different internal testing may find
> better
> > > fixes.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This kind of problem is often easy to fix, but difficult to
> troubleshoot.
> > > > So usually when you are 100% confirmed the issue, usually know how
> to fix
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > >> I think these were not included because they were labeled after I
> > > > cherry picked PRs on Friday. I will take a look and try to cherry
> pick
> > > > all of those before tagging the next release candidate
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I see. Thanks. I have checked
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commits/branch-2.8
> > > > LGTM.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Penghui
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:21 AM Michael Marshall <
> mmarshall@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Closing the vote with one -1 from Penghui.
> > > >>
> > > >>> We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
> > > >>> I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
> > > >>> to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it
> > > >>
> > > >> I wonder if we should be more willing to share suspicions on the
> > > >> mailing list when releases are actively being prepared. I would
> > > >> have appreciated the notice, and I could have possibly helped
> > > >> confirm the issue. On the other hand, I respect that it is hard to
> > > >> know when to share a theory and when to test it out a bit more.
> > > >>
> > > >>> And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
> > > >>
> > > >> I think these were not included because they were labeled after I
> > > >> cherry picked PRs on Friday. I will take a look and try to cherry
> pick
> > > >> all of those before tagging the next release candidate.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Michael
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:52 AM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Sorry Michael
> > > >>>
> > > >>> There is a breaking change introduced in branch-2.8.
> > > >>> Sorry for that I forget to update the 2.8.3 release process,
> > > >>> Only update the context in 2.9.2 and 2.10.0.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
> > > >>> I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
> > > >>> to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The fixed PR is https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14288
> > > >>>
> > > >>> And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
> > > >>> Please check the list
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.8.3+is%3Aclosed+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.8+
> > > >>> If they are not a requirement for 2.8.3, we can move it to the next
> > > >> version.
> > > >>> For https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14246, I can confirm,
> > > without
> > > >>> this fix, we will also introduce breaking change in 2.8.3
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I have to give my -1 here
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Regards,
> > > >>> Penghui
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:56 PM Michael Marshall <
> > > mmarshall@apache.org>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version
> 2.8.3.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It fixes the following issues:
> > > >>>>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.8.2...v2.8.3-candidate-1
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> *** 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-2.8.3-candidate-1/
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> SHA-512 checksums:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> b9d48a92404bacb0505406f57974c9e1ceecfede12cdc286656dbf1ee75c204c0af67540945a5d7b0fb1e295b6f06317444932359fd9af29d4ee8ceefa13f0ee
> > > >>>> apache-pulsar-2.8.3-bin.tar.gz
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> d31ee747ba2a796230dd052994214028761813057967e92599dcf51e1b64726178b5ba6e3676cc5e947d60ee0411b0f02cb1ffcd91ba8a4138d220bbec7b6731
> > > >>>> apache-pulsar-2.8.3-src.tar.gz
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Unofficial Docker images:
> > > >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar:2.8.3-rc1
> > > >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-all:2.8.3-rc1
> > > >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-standalone:2.8.3-rc1
> > > >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-grafana:2.8.3-rc1
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Maven staging repo:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1139/
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The tag to be voted upon:
> > > >>>> v2.8.3-candidate-1 (f3234374b50ae25d5afc9e882d1e3eb50a79fffd)
> > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.8.3-candidate-1
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 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 2.8.3 Candidate 1
Posted by Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>.
I agree that it can be non-trivial to determine if an issue is an
internal test or an upstream issue.
My main point is that we should prefer early communication of
potential issues that affect pending releases and accept that the
issue might prove to be nothing more than a short delay in the release
cycle. The alternative is that a release manager completes the build
process, which takes several hours, then discovers a new candidate is
needed. There is still an inherent race condition for release creation
and validation, but early communication (and collaboration) might help
us avoid some of the cases where candidates are rejected immediately.
For what it's worth, I don't think you need to verify your test
correctness 100% before sharing potential issues that affect pending
releases. A quick note to the dev mailing list indicating that you're
investigating a potential issue would be sufficient and valuable.
Thanks,
Michael
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 6:30 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Just a friendly reminder that we are an open source project and other
> community members who may have different internal testing may find better
> fixes.
>
> Sorry, dave. I know we are an open source project.
> We found a problem in our internal test, we need to confirm it is not
> the test issue right?
>
> Do you suggest that we discuss this in the email when we find our internal
> test errors?
> The community has no responsibility to deal with our internal testing bugs.
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 8:04 AM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 15, 2022, at 3:59 PM, PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I wonder if we should be more willing to share suspicions on the
> > > mailing list when releases are actively being prepared. I would
> > > have appreciated the notice, and I could have possibly helped
> > > confirm the issue. On the other hand, I respect that it is hard to
> > > know when to share a theory and when to test it out a bit more.
> > >
> > > Yes, It's just that these issues are happening in our internal testing
> > > and we need to 100% confirm the issue and then share it out,
> > > otherwise, We may confuse the contributors due to internal test problems.
> >
> > Just a friendly reminder that we are an open source project and other
> > community members who may have different internal testing may find better
> > fixes.
> >
> > >
> > > This kind of problem is often easy to fix, but difficult to troubleshoot.
> > > So usually when you are 100% confirmed the issue, usually know how to fix
> > > it.
> > >
> > >> I think these were not included because they were labeled after I
> > > cherry picked PRs on Friday. I will take a look and try to cherry pick
> > > all of those before tagging the next release candidate
> > >
> > > Oh, I see. Thanks. I have checked
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commits/branch-2.8
> > > LGTM.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Penghui
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:21 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Closing the vote with one -1 from Penghui.
> > >>
> > >>> We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
> > >>> I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
> > >>> to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it
> > >>
> > >> I wonder if we should be more willing to share suspicions on the
> > >> mailing list when releases are actively being prepared. I would
> > >> have appreciated the notice, and I could have possibly helped
> > >> confirm the issue. On the other hand, I respect that it is hard to
> > >> know when to share a theory and when to test it out a bit more.
> > >>
> > >>> And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
> > >>
> > >> I think these were not included because they were labeled after I
> > >> cherry picked PRs on Friday. I will take a look and try to cherry pick
> > >> all of those before tagging the next release candidate.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Michael
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:52 AM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Sorry Michael
> > >>>
> > >>> There is a breaking change introduced in branch-2.8.
> > >>> Sorry for that I forget to update the 2.8.3 release process,
> > >>> Only update the context in 2.9.2 and 2.10.0.
> > >>>
> > >>> We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
> > >>> I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
> > >>> to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it
> > >>>
> > >>> The fixed PR is https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14288
> > >>>
> > >>> And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
> > >>> Please check the list
> > >>>
> > >>
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.8.3+is%3Aclosed+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.8+
> > >>> If they are not a requirement for 2.8.3, we can move it to the next
> > >> version.
> > >>> For https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14246, I can confirm,
> > without
> > >>> this fix, we will also introduce breaking change in 2.8.3
> > >>>
> > >>> I have to give my -1 here
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> Penghui
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:56 PM Michael Marshall <
> > mmarshall@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.8.3.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It fixes the following issues:
> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.8.2...v2.8.3-candidate-1
> > >>>>
> > >>>> *** 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-2.8.3-candidate-1/
> > >>>>
> > >>>> SHA-512 checksums:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > b9d48a92404bacb0505406f57974c9e1ceecfede12cdc286656dbf1ee75c204c0af67540945a5d7b0fb1e295b6f06317444932359fd9af29d4ee8ceefa13f0ee
> > >>>> apache-pulsar-2.8.3-bin.tar.gz
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > d31ee747ba2a796230dd052994214028761813057967e92599dcf51e1b64726178b5ba6e3676cc5e947d60ee0411b0f02cb1ffcd91ba8a4138d220bbec7b6731
> > >>>> apache-pulsar-2.8.3-src.tar.gz
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Unofficial Docker images:
> > >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar:2.8.3-rc1
> > >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-all:2.8.3-rc1
> > >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-standalone:2.8.3-rc1
> > >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-grafana:2.8.3-rc1
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Maven staging repo:
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1139/
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The tag to be voted upon:
> > >>>> v2.8.3-candidate-1 (f3234374b50ae25d5afc9e882d1e3eb50a79fffd)
> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.8.3-candidate-1
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 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 2.8.3 Candidate 1
Posted by PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>.
> Just a friendly reminder that we are an open source project and other
community members who may have different internal testing may find better
fixes.
Sorry, dave. I know we are an open source project.
We found a problem in our internal test, we need to confirm it is not
the test issue right?
Do you suggest that we discuss this in the email when we find our internal
test errors?
The community has no responsibility to deal with our internal testing bugs.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 8:04 AM Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 2022, at 3:59 PM, PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I wonder if we should be more willing to share suspicions on the
> > mailing list when releases are actively being prepared. I would
> > have appreciated the notice, and I could have possibly helped
> > confirm the issue. On the other hand, I respect that it is hard to
> > know when to share a theory and when to test it out a bit more.
> >
> > Yes, It's just that these issues are happening in our internal testing
> > and we need to 100% confirm the issue and then share it out,
> > otherwise, We may confuse the contributors due to internal test problems.
>
> Just a friendly reminder that we are an open source project and other
> community members who may have different internal testing may find better
> fixes.
>
> >
> > This kind of problem is often easy to fix, but difficult to troubleshoot.
> > So usually when you are 100% confirmed the issue, usually know how to fix
> > it.
> >
> >> I think these were not included because they were labeled after I
> > cherry picked PRs on Friday. I will take a look and try to cherry pick
> > all of those before tagging the next release candidate
> >
> > Oh, I see. Thanks. I have checked
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commits/branch-2.8
> > LGTM.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:21 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Closing the vote with one -1 from Penghui.
> >>
> >>> We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
> >>> I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
> >>> to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it
> >>
> >> I wonder if we should be more willing to share suspicions on the
> >> mailing list when releases are actively being prepared. I would
> >> have appreciated the notice, and I could have possibly helped
> >> confirm the issue. On the other hand, I respect that it is hard to
> >> know when to share a theory and when to test it out a bit more.
> >>
> >>> And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
> >>
> >> I think these were not included because they were labeled after I
> >> cherry picked PRs on Friday. I will take a look and try to cherry pick
> >> all of those before tagging the next release candidate.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Michael
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:52 AM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sorry Michael
> >>>
> >>> There is a breaking change introduced in branch-2.8.
> >>> Sorry for that I forget to update the 2.8.3 release process,
> >>> Only update the context in 2.9.2 and 2.10.0.
> >>>
> >>> We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
> >>> I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
> >>> to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it
> >>>
> >>> The fixed PR is https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14288
> >>>
> >>> And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
> >>> Please check the list
> >>>
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.8.3+is%3Aclosed+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.8+
> >>> If they are not a requirement for 2.8.3, we can move it to the next
> >> version.
> >>> For https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14246, I can confirm,
> without
> >>> this fix, we will also introduce breaking change in 2.8.3
> >>>
> >>> I have to give my -1 here
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Penghui
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:56 PM Michael Marshall <
> mmarshall@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.8.3.
> >>>>
> >>>> It fixes the following issues:
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.8.2...v2.8.3-candidate-1
> >>>>
> >>>> *** 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-2.8.3-candidate-1/
> >>>>
> >>>> SHA-512 checksums:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> b9d48a92404bacb0505406f57974c9e1ceecfede12cdc286656dbf1ee75c204c0af67540945a5d7b0fb1e295b6f06317444932359fd9af29d4ee8ceefa13f0ee
> >>>> apache-pulsar-2.8.3-bin.tar.gz
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> d31ee747ba2a796230dd052994214028761813057967e92599dcf51e1b64726178b5ba6e3676cc5e947d60ee0411b0f02cb1ffcd91ba8a4138d220bbec7b6731
> >>>> apache-pulsar-2.8.3-src.tar.gz
> >>>>
> >>>> Unofficial Docker images:
> >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar:2.8.3-rc1
> >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-all:2.8.3-rc1
> >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-standalone:2.8.3-rc1
> >>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-grafana:2.8.3-rc1
> >>>>
> >>>> Maven staging repo:
> >>>>
> >>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1139/
> >>>>
> >>>> The tag to be voted upon:
> >>>> v2.8.3-candidate-1 (f3234374b50ae25d5afc9e882d1e3eb50a79fffd)
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.8.3-candidate-1
> >>>>
> >>>> 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 2.8.3 Candidate 1
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>.
> On Feb 15, 2022, at 3:59 PM, PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I wonder if we should be more willing to share suspicions on the
> mailing list when releases are actively being prepared. I would
> have appreciated the notice, and I could have possibly helped
> confirm the issue. On the other hand, I respect that it is hard to
> know when to share a theory and when to test it out a bit more.
>
> Yes, It's just that these issues are happening in our internal testing
> and we need to 100% confirm the issue and then share it out,
> otherwise, We may confuse the contributors due to internal test problems.
Just a friendly reminder that we are an open source project and other community members who may have different internal testing may find better fixes.
>
> This kind of problem is often easy to fix, but difficult to troubleshoot.
> So usually when you are 100% confirmed the issue, usually know how to fix
> it.
>
>> I think these were not included because they were labeled after I
> cherry picked PRs on Friday. I will take a look and try to cherry pick
> all of those before tagging the next release candidate
>
> Oh, I see. Thanks. I have checked
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commits/branch-2.8
> LGTM.
>
> Regards,
> Penghui
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:21 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Closing the vote with one -1 from Penghui.
>>
>>> We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
>>> I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
>>> to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it
>>
>> I wonder if we should be more willing to share suspicions on the
>> mailing list when releases are actively being prepared. I would
>> have appreciated the notice, and I could have possibly helped
>> confirm the issue. On the other hand, I respect that it is hard to
>> know when to share a theory and when to test it out a bit more.
>>
>>> And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
>>
>> I think these were not included because they were labeled after I
>> cherry picked PRs on Friday. I will take a look and try to cherry pick
>> all of those before tagging the next release candidate.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:52 AM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry Michael
>>>
>>> There is a breaking change introduced in branch-2.8.
>>> Sorry for that I forget to update the 2.8.3 release process,
>>> Only update the context in 2.9.2 and 2.10.0.
>>>
>>> We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
>>> I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
>>> to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it
>>>
>>> The fixed PR is https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14288
>>>
>>> And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
>>> Please check the list
>>>
>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.8.3+is%3Aclosed+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.8+
>>> If they are not a requirement for 2.8.3, we can move it to the next
>> version.
>>> For https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14246, I can confirm, without
>>> this fix, we will also introduce breaking change in 2.8.3
>>>
>>> I have to give my -1 here
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Penghui
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:56 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.8.3.
>>>>
>>>> It fixes the following issues:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.8.2...v2.8.3-candidate-1
>>>>
>>>> *** 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-2.8.3-candidate-1/
>>>>
>>>> SHA-512 checksums:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> b9d48a92404bacb0505406f57974c9e1ceecfede12cdc286656dbf1ee75c204c0af67540945a5d7b0fb1e295b6f06317444932359fd9af29d4ee8ceefa13f0ee
>>>> apache-pulsar-2.8.3-bin.tar.gz
>>>>
>>>>
>> d31ee747ba2a796230dd052994214028761813057967e92599dcf51e1b64726178b5ba6e3676cc5e947d60ee0411b0f02cb1ffcd91ba8a4138d220bbec7b6731
>>>> apache-pulsar-2.8.3-src.tar.gz
>>>>
>>>> Unofficial Docker images:
>>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar:2.8.3-rc1
>>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-all:2.8.3-rc1
>>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-standalone:2.8.3-rc1
>>>> michaelmarshall/pulsar-grafana:2.8.3-rc1
>>>>
>>>> Maven staging repo:
>>>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1139/
>>>>
>>>> The tag to be voted upon:
>>>> v2.8.3-candidate-1 (f3234374b50ae25d5afc9e882d1e3eb50a79fffd)
>>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.8.3-candidate-1
>>>>
>>>> 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 2.8.3 Candidate 1
Posted by PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>.
> I wonder if we should be more willing to share suspicions on the
mailing list when releases are actively being prepared. I would
have appreciated the notice, and I could have possibly helped
confirm the issue. On the other hand, I respect that it is hard to
know when to share a theory and when to test it out a bit more.
Yes, It's just that these issues are happening in our internal testing
and we need to 100% confirm the issue and then share it out,
otherwise, We may confuse the contributors due to internal test problems.
This kind of problem is often easy to fix, but difficult to troubleshoot.
So usually when you are 100% confirmed the issue, usually know how to fix
it.
> I think these were not included because they were labeled after I
cherry picked PRs on Friday. I will take a look and try to cherry pick
all of those before tagging the next release candidate
Oh, I see. Thanks. I have checked
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commits/branch-2.8
LGTM.
Regards,
Penghui
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:21 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Closing the vote with one -1 from Penghui.
>
> > We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
> > I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
> > to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it
>
> I wonder if we should be more willing to share suspicions on the
> mailing list when releases are actively being prepared. I would
> have appreciated the notice, and I could have possibly helped
> confirm the issue. On the other hand, I respect that it is hard to
> know when to share a theory and when to test it out a bit more.
>
> > And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
>
> I think these were not included because they were labeled after I
> cherry picked PRs on Friday. I will take a look and try to cherry pick
> all of those before tagging the next release candidate.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:52 AM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry Michael
> >
> > There is a breaking change introduced in branch-2.8.
> > Sorry for that I forget to update the 2.8.3 release process,
> > Only update the context in 2.9.2 and 2.10.0.
> >
> > We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
> > I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
> > to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it
> >
> > The fixed PR is https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14288
> >
> > And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
> > Please check the list
> >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.8.3+is%3Aclosed+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.8+
> > If they are not a requirement for 2.8.3, we can move it to the next
> version.
> > For https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14246, I can confirm, without
> > this fix, we will also introduce breaking change in 2.8.3
> >
> > I have to give my -1 here
> >
> > Regards,
> > Penghui
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:56 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.8.3.
> > >
> > > It fixes the following issues:
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.8.2...v2.8.3-candidate-1
> > >
> > > *** 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-2.8.3-candidate-1/
> > >
> > > SHA-512 checksums:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> b9d48a92404bacb0505406f57974c9e1ceecfede12cdc286656dbf1ee75c204c0af67540945a5d7b0fb1e295b6f06317444932359fd9af29d4ee8ceefa13f0ee
> > > apache-pulsar-2.8.3-bin.tar.gz
> > >
> > >
> d31ee747ba2a796230dd052994214028761813057967e92599dcf51e1b64726178b5ba6e3676cc5e947d60ee0411b0f02cb1ffcd91ba8a4138d220bbec7b6731
> > > apache-pulsar-2.8.3-src.tar.gz
> > >
> > > Unofficial Docker images:
> > > michaelmarshall/pulsar:2.8.3-rc1
> > > michaelmarshall/pulsar-all:2.8.3-rc1
> > > michaelmarshall/pulsar-standalone:2.8.3-rc1
> > > michaelmarshall/pulsar-grafana:2.8.3-rc1
> > >
> > > Maven staging repo:
> > >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1139/
> > >
> > > The tag to be voted upon:
> > > v2.8.3-candidate-1 (f3234374b50ae25d5afc9e882d1e3eb50a79fffd)
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.8.3-candidate-1
> > >
> > > 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 2.8.3 Candidate 1
Posted by Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>.
Closing the vote with one -1 from Penghui.
> We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
> I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
> to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it
I wonder if we should be more willing to share suspicions on the
mailing list when releases are actively being prepared. I would
have appreciated the notice, and I could have possibly helped
confirm the issue. On the other hand, I respect that it is hard to
know when to share a theory and when to test it out a bit more.
> And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
I think these were not included because they were labeled after I
cherry picked PRs on Friday. I will take a look and try to cherry pick
all of those before tagging the next release candidate.
Thanks,
Michael
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:52 AM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Sorry Michael
>
> There is a breaking change introduced in branch-2.8.
> Sorry for that I forget to update the 2.8.3 release process,
> Only update the context in 2.9.2 and 2.10.0.
>
> We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
> I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
> to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it
>
> The fixed PR is https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14288
>
> And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
> Please check the list
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.8.3+is%3Aclosed+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.8+
> If they are not a requirement for 2.8.3, we can move it to the next version.
> For https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14246, I can confirm, without
> this fix, we will also introduce breaking change in 2.8.3
>
> I have to give my -1 here
>
> Regards,
> Penghui
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:56 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.8.3.
> >
> > It fixes the following issues:
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.8.2...v2.8.3-candidate-1
> >
> > *** 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-2.8.3-candidate-1/
> >
> > SHA-512 checksums:
> >
> >
> > b9d48a92404bacb0505406f57974c9e1ceecfede12cdc286656dbf1ee75c204c0af67540945a5d7b0fb1e295b6f06317444932359fd9af29d4ee8ceefa13f0ee
> > apache-pulsar-2.8.3-bin.tar.gz
> >
> > d31ee747ba2a796230dd052994214028761813057967e92599dcf51e1b64726178b5ba6e3676cc5e947d60ee0411b0f02cb1ffcd91ba8a4138d220bbec7b6731
> > apache-pulsar-2.8.3-src.tar.gz
> >
> > Unofficial Docker images:
> > michaelmarshall/pulsar:2.8.3-rc1
> > michaelmarshall/pulsar-all:2.8.3-rc1
> > michaelmarshall/pulsar-standalone:2.8.3-rc1
> > michaelmarshall/pulsar-grafana:2.8.3-rc1
> >
> > Maven staging repo:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1139/
> >
> > The tag to be voted upon:
> > v2.8.3-candidate-1 (f3234374b50ae25d5afc9e882d1e3eb50a79fffd)
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.8.3-candidate-1
> >
> > 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 2.8.3 Candidate 1
Posted by PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>.
Sorry Michael
There is a breaking change introduced in branch-2.8.
Sorry for that I forget to update the 2.8.3 release process,
Only update the context in 2.9.2 and 2.10.0.
We just confirmed yesterday that this is a breaking change,
I was just suspicious before, so do not share the information
to avoid confusing reviewers. For now, we confirmed it
The fixed PR is https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14288
And not all the PRs get cherry-picked to 2.8.3?
Please check the list
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.8.3+is%3Aclosed+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.8+
If they are not a requirement for 2.8.3, we can move it to the next version.
For https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14246, I can confirm, without
this fix, we will also introduce breaking change in 2.8.3
I have to give my -1 here
Regards,
Penghui
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:56 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
wrote:
> This is the first release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.8.3.
>
> It fixes the following issues:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.8.2...v2.8.3-candidate-1
>
> *** 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-2.8.3-candidate-1/
>
> SHA-512 checksums:
>
>
> b9d48a92404bacb0505406f57974c9e1ceecfede12cdc286656dbf1ee75c204c0af67540945a5d7b0fb1e295b6f06317444932359fd9af29d4ee8ceefa13f0ee
> apache-pulsar-2.8.3-bin.tar.gz
>
> d31ee747ba2a796230dd052994214028761813057967e92599dcf51e1b64726178b5ba6e3676cc5e947d60ee0411b0f02cb1ffcd91ba8a4138d220bbec7b6731
> apache-pulsar-2.8.3-src.tar.gz
>
> Unofficial Docker images:
> michaelmarshall/pulsar:2.8.3-rc1
> michaelmarshall/pulsar-all:2.8.3-rc1
> michaelmarshall/pulsar-standalone:2.8.3-rc1
> michaelmarshall/pulsar-grafana:2.8.3-rc1
>
> Maven staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1139/
>
> The tag to be voted upon:
> v2.8.3-candidate-1 (f3234374b50ae25d5afc9e882d1e3eb50a79fffd)
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.8.3-candidate-1
>
> 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.
>