You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pulsar.apache.org by Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> on 2022/02/02 07:33:38 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2
(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
Posted by 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
Posted by 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
Posted by 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
Posted by 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
Posted by 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
Posted by 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
Posted by 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
Posted by 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
Posted by 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
Posted by 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