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 2022/10/31 08:31:19 UTC

Releasing current master as Pulsar 2.11.0 ?

Hello Pulsar fellows,

I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.

The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.

In the meantime many features went into master branch,

I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
and start with something that is already stale.

I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
current master branch and start the period of hardening before cutting
the release.

IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or fixed
or closed as "not a problem":
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
created the issue.
Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with Pulsar.
I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
third party project and only in some private QA environment.

Thoughts ?

Enrico

Re: Releasing current master as Pulsar 2.11.0 ?

Posted by guo jiwei <te...@apache.org>.

Hi，
When verifying the release, we found that there is a problem with the
connector.
We are looking for the cause and will continue to release it after it is
fixed.


Regards
Jiwei Guo (Tboy)


On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 3:40 PM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Il giorno gio 17 nov 2022 alle ore 03:06 guo jiwei
> <te...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> >
> > Hi
> >    I'm going to release 2.11 today.
> Great !
>
>
> Enrico
>
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Jiwei Guo
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 9:52 AM guo jiwei <te...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Most of you agree to use the previous branch-2.11 for release, I will
> > > start the release this week.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Jiwei Guo
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 4:23 AM Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> My two cents,
> > >>
> > >> I think we should go forward with the current branch. All the cherry
> picks
> > >> were done in a thoughtful way.
> > >>
> > >> My assumption is that if we go down recutting the branch from the
> current
> > >> master, it will take at least a couple of weeks to get it in a stable
> > >> condition. Other than that, there’s still the time needed for rc,
> vote,
> > >> and
> > >> so on.
> > >>
> > >> From my understanding now the current branch is ready for an rc since
> we
> > >> upgraded bookkeeper and all the perf doubts are gone away.
> > >>
> > >> If we start with an rc this week, we’ll be likely able to release
> 2.11 in
> > >> December. (And we’re still 4 months late).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Nicolò
> > >>
> > >> Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle 21:03 Yunze Xu
> > >> <yz...@streamnative.io.invalid>
> > >> ha scritto:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Enrico,
> > >> >
> > >> > It's okay for me to cut the current master as 2.11.0, but since
> many new
> > >> > PRs
> > >> > were merged recently, I'm afraid some regressions might be
> introduced. I
> > >> > found
> > >> > some flaky tests (like [1]) recently, not sure whether they are
> caused
> > >> > by bugs. And
> > >> > there is also a PR [2] that tries to solve a bug but it also brings
> a
> > >> > regression. See
> > >> > my fix here: [3]
> > >> >
> > >> > Generally, when there are more PRs between two major releases, there
> > >> will
> > >> > be
> > >> > a higher possibility to introduce more unstable factors. So we must
> > >> > take it verfy
> > >> > carefully with the 2.11 release.
> > >> >
> > >> > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18480
> > >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18454
> > >> > [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18486
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks,
> > >> > Yunze
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:30 AM Michael Marshall <
> mmarshall@apache.org
> > >> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > 3.0.0 means "breaking changes"
> > >> > >
> > >> > > PIP 175 [0] proposes a different meaning to 3.0.0. The proposed
> > >> > > meaning is that each major release is an LTS version. Here is the
> > >> > > exact wording:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > The major version bump will not carry any special meaning in
> terms
> > >> of
> > >> > > > "big features" included in the release or breaking API changes.
> > >> > > > Instead, it would simply signal the type of the release.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > However, I don't remember a vote to adopt PIP 175. I see the
> > >> > > discussion on the ML [1], but I don't see the vote.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > - Michael
> > >> > >
> > >> > > [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966
> > >> > > [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/rg1g083c06ozm5go6zo1jophg9y9zl2f
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:40 AM Enrico Olivelli <
> eolivelli@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle ore 15:26 Hang Chen
> > >> > > > <ch...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > If we drop the current branch-2.11 and release based on the
> > >> master,
> > >> > > > > why not release 3.0.0 based on the master branch directly
> > >> according
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > the new release plan [1].
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > 3.0.0 means "breaking changes"
> > >> > > > current master is 100% compatible
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Enrico
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > If we cut the master branch and release Pulsar 2.11.0, we will
> > >> wait
> > >> > at
> > >> > > > > least three months before we cut 3.0.0.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > Hang
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > guo jiwei <te...@apache.org> 于2022年11月14日周一 17:16写道：
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I found out that several PRs have been unable to
> cherry-pick to
> > >> > 2.11 today.
> > >> > > > > > I agree to cut the new branch based on the master and turn
> off
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > > new/unstable features in branch-2.11.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Regards
> > >> > > > > > Tboy
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM Dave Fisher <
> > >> wave4dave@comcast.net>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Inline
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 2022, at 6:55 AM, Enrico Olivelli <
> > >> > eolivelli@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > PengHui,
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >> Il giorno mar 1 nov 2022 alle ore 07:51 PengHui Li
> > >> > > > > > > >> <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > >> > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > >>> As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and
> 2.8.
> > >> > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > >> Agree. We should clarify this one.
> > >> > > > > > > >> I think we can stop to provide new releases for 2.7
> > >> > > > > > > >> and only security or critical bugs for 2.8 (one more
> > >> official
> > >> > release)
> > >> > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 will
> make
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > > > >> release strategy clear.
> > >> > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > >> LTS -> 36 months (24 + 12)
> > >> > > > > > > >> Feature release -> 6 months (3+3)
> > >> > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > > >> Penghui
> > >> > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <
> > >> > mmarshall@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release
> > >> > branches, and
> > >> > > > > > > planning
> > >> > > > > > > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it
> will
> > >> > make that
> > >> > > > > > > problem
> > >> > > > > > > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for
> 2.7
> > >> and
> > >> > 2.8.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > > >>> Michael
> > >> > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <
> > >> > penghui@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more
> > >> > uncertainty, no?
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced
> to
> > >> > branch-2.11.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master
> branch.
> > >> > Maybe new
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> regressions
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another
> month to
> > >> > have a
> > >> > > > > > > 2.11.0
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> release.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > I am not sure.
> > >> > > > > > > > I don't know if anyone is actively testing the 2.11
> branch
> > >> > more than
> > >> > > > > > > > the master branch.
> > >> > > > > > > > On my side the (automated) testing that I do with my
> > >> > colleagues on
> > >> > > > > > > > branch-2.11 is basically the same as for the master
> branch.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > I believe that if we want to cut a 2.11 release that is
> not
> > >> > branched
> > >> > > > > > > > again from the master branch
> > >> > > > > > > > we really must start the release as soon as BK 4.15.3 is
> > >> > released
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > I understand that Bookkeeper issues have Ben what’s
> blocking
> > >> 2.11
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Many people contributed features to the master branch
> that
> > >> > cannot be
> > >> > > > > > > > shipped with 2.11 because
> > >> > > > > > > > they are considered "breaking changes".
> > >> > > > > > > > But 2.11 was supposed to be released in August, more
> than 3
> > >> > months ago.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > I think we can recognize that our past history has been
> that
> > >> > there are
> > >> > > > > > > often 3 or 4 RCs for our 2.x.0 releases.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Maybe we should be cherry picking some PRs on master to
> 2.11
> > >> > before we
> > >> > > > > > > start the process? It may or may not save an RC but it
> will
> > >> give
> > >> > us time to
> > >> > > > > > > be realistic about a reasonable cadence from 2.10.x to
> 2.11.x
> > >> to
> > >> > 2.12.x …
> > >> > > > > > > it’s hard to support many versions at once. The CVE
> announced
> > >> > today took
> > >> > > > > > > months to be included in all of our current releases from
> > >> 2.7.5
> > >> > to 2.10.2.
> > >> > > > > > > Separation of C++ and Pulsar client releases from Pulsar
> > >> > releases helps
> > >> > > > > > > here, but it may not with the next security issue.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Regards,
> > >> > > > > > > Dave
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Enrico
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3
> more
> > >> > months.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release
> for
> > >> now.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a
> > >> chaos
> > >> > test for
> > >> > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> case.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper
> release
> > >> > 4.15.3 since
> > >> > > > > > > >>> 4.15.2
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> has regressions [1]
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> Penghui
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <
> > >> > mmarshall@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely,
> but I
> > >> > think it
> > >> > > > > > > makes
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current
> master.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago.
> Re-creating
> > >> > the branch
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added
> > >> over
> > >> > the past 3
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> months.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will
> need to
> > >> > clean up PR
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> Michael
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <
> > >> > eolivelli@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted
> to
> > >> cut
> > >> > 2.11.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master
> branch,
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release
> from
> > >> > branch-2.11
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new
> branch
> > >> out
> > >> > of the
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of
> hardening
> > >> > before
> > >> > > > > > > >>> cutting
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> the release.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be
> > >> > confirmed or
> > >> > > > > > > >>> fixed
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with
> the
> > >> > folks you
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> created the issue.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the
> > >> problem
> > >> > with
> > >> > > > > > > Pulsar.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week
> > >> before
> > >> > having more
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK.
> The
> > >> > problem is
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more
> than 4
> > >> > hours) of a
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA
> > >> > environment.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Enrico
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <
> > >> > mmarshall@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release
> > >> > branches, and
> > >> > > > > > > planning
> > >> > > > > > > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it
> will
> > >> > make that
> > >> > > > > > > problem
> > >> > > > > > > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for
> 2.7
> > >> and
> > >> > 2.8.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > > >>> Michael
> > >> > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <
> > >> > penghui@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more
> > >> > uncertainty, no?
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced
> to
> > >> > branch-2.11.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master
> branch.
> > >> > Maybe new
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> regressions
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another
> month to
> > >> > have a
> > >> > > > > > > 2.11.0
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> release.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3
> more
> > >> > months.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release
> for
> > >> now.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a
> > >> chaos
> > >> > test for
> > >> > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> case.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper
> release
> > >> > 4.15.3 since
> > >> > > > > > > >>> 4.15.2
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> has regressions [1]
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> Penghui
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <
> > >> > mmarshall@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely,
> but I
> > >> > think it
> > >> > > > > > > makes
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current
> master.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago.
> Re-creating
> > >> > the branch
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added
> > >> over
> > >> > the past 3
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> months.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will
> need to
> > >> > clean up PR
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> Michael
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <
> > >> > eolivelli@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted
> to
> > >> cut
> > >> > 2.11.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master
> branch,
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release
> from
> > >> > branch-2.11
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new
> branch
> > >> out
> > >> > of the
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of
> hardening
> > >> > before
> > >> > > > > > > >>> cutting
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> the release.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be
> > >> > confirmed or
> > >> > > > > > > >>> fixed
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with
> the
> > >> > folks you
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> created the issue.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the
> > >> problem
> > >> > with
> > >> > > > > > > Pulsar.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week
> > >> before
> > >> > having more
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK.
> The
> > >> > problem is
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more
> than 4
> > >> > hours) of a
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA
> > >> > environment.
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Enrico
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>>
> > >> > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> >
> > >> --
> > >> Nicolò Boschi
> > >>
> > >
>

Re: Releasing current master as Pulsar 2.11.0 ?

Posted by Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>.

Il giorno gio 17 nov 2022 alle ore 03:06 guo jiwei
<te...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>
> Hi
>    I'm going to release 2.11 today.
Great !


Enrico

>
>
> Regards
> Jiwei Guo
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 9:52 AM guo jiwei <te...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Most of you agree to use the previous branch-2.11 for release, I will
> > start the release this week.
> >
> > Regards
> > Jiwei Guo
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 4:23 AM Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> My two cents,
> >>
> >> I think we should go forward with the current branch. All the cherry picks
> >> were done in a thoughtful way.
> >>
> >> My assumption is that if we go down recutting the branch from the current
> >> master, it will take at least a couple of weeks to get it in a stable
> >> condition. Other than that, there’s still the time needed for rc, vote,
> >> and
> >> so on.
> >>
> >> From my understanding now the current branch is ready for an rc since we
> >> upgraded bookkeeper and all the perf doubts are gone away.
> >>
> >> If we start with an rc this week, we’ll be likely able to release 2.11 in
> >> December. (And we’re still 4 months late).
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Nicolò
> >>
> >> Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle 21:03 Yunze Xu
> >> <yz...@streamnative.io.invalid>
> >> ha scritto:
> >>
> >> > Hi Enrico,
> >> >
> >> > It's okay for me to cut the current master as 2.11.0, but since many new
> >> > PRs
> >> > were merged recently, I'm afraid some regressions might be introduced. I
> >> > found
> >> > some flaky tests (like [1]) recently, not sure whether they are caused
> >> > by bugs. And
> >> > there is also a PR [2] that tries to solve a bug but it also brings a
> >> > regression. See
> >> > my fix here: [3]
> >> >
> >> > Generally, when there are more PRs between two major releases, there
> >> will
> >> > be
> >> > a higher possibility to introduce more unstable factors. So we must
> >> > take it verfy
> >> > carefully with the 2.11 release.
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18480
> >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18454
> >> > [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18486
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Yunze
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:30 AM Michael Marshall <mmarshall@apache.org
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > 3.0.0 means "breaking changes"
> >> > >
> >> > > PIP 175 [0] proposes a different meaning to 3.0.0. The proposed
> >> > > meaning is that each major release is an LTS version. Here is the
> >> > > exact wording:
> >> > >
> >> > > > The major version bump will not carry any special meaning in terms
> >> of
> >> > > > "big features" included in the release or breaking API changes.
> >> > > > Instead, it would simply signal the type of the release.
> >> > >
> >> > > However, I don't remember a vote to adopt PIP 175. I see the
> >> > > discussion on the ML [1], but I don't see the vote.
> >> > >
> >> > > - Michael
> >> > >
> >> > > [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966
> >> > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rg1g083c06ozm5go6zo1jophg9y9zl2f
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:40 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle ore 15:26 Hang Chen
> >> > > > <ch...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > If we drop the current branch-2.11 and release based on the
> >> master,
> >> > > > > why not release 3.0.0 based on the master branch directly
> >> according
> >> > to
> >> > > > > the new release plan [1].
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 3.0.0 means "breaking changes"
> >> > > > current master is 100% compatible
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Enrico
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > If we cut the master branch and release Pulsar 2.11.0, we will
> >> wait
> >> > at
> >> > > > > least three months before we cut 3.0.0.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > Hang
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > guo jiwei <te...@apache.org> 于2022年11月14日周一 17:16写道：
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I found out that several PRs have been unable to cherry-pick to
> >> > 2.11 today.
> >> > > > > > I agree to cut the new branch based on the master and turn off
> >> the
> >> > > > > > new/unstable features in branch-2.11.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Regards
> >> > > > > > Tboy
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM Dave Fisher <
> >> wave4dave@comcast.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Inline
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 2022, at 6:55 AM, Enrico Olivelli <
> >> > eolivelli@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > PengHui,
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >> Il giorno mar 1 nov 2022 alle ore 07:51 PengHui Li
> >> > > > > > > >> <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >>> As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> Agree. We should clarify this one.
> >> > > > > > > >> I think we can stop to provide new releases for 2.7
> >> > > > > > > >> and only security or critical bugs for 2.8 (one more
> >> official
> >> > release)
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 will make
> >> the
> >> > > > > > > >> release strategy clear.
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> LTS -> 36 months (24 + 12)
> >> > > > > > > >> Feature release -> 6 months (3+3)
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > >> Penghui
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <
> >> > mmarshall@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release
> >> > branches, and
> >> > > > > > > planning
> >> > > > > > > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will
> >> > make that
> >> > > > > > > problem
> >> > > > > > > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7
> >> and
> >> > 2.8.
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > >>> Michael
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <
> >> > penghui@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more
> >> > uncertainty, no?
> >> > > > > > > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to
> >> > branch-2.11.
> >> > > > > > > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch.
> >> > Maybe new
> >> > > > > > > >>>> regressions
> >> > > > > > > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to
> >> > have a
> >> > > > > > > 2.11.0
> >> > > > > > > >>>> release.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > I am not sure.
> >> > > > > > > > I don't know if anyone is actively testing the 2.11 branch
> >> > more than
> >> > > > > > > > the master branch.
> >> > > > > > > > On my side the (automated) testing that I do with my
> >> > colleagues on
> >> > > > > > > > branch-2.11 is basically the same as for the master branch.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > I believe that if we want to cut a 2.11 release that is not
> >> > branched
> >> > > > > > > > again from the master branch
> >> > > > > > > > we really must start the release as soon as BK 4.15.3 is
> >> > released
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I understand that Bookkeeper issues have Ben what’s blocking
> >> 2.11
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Many people contributed features to the master branch that
> >> > cannot be
> >> > > > > > > > shipped with 2.11 because
> >> > > > > > > > they are considered "breaking changes".
> >> > > > > > > > But 2.11 was supposed to be released in August, more than 3
> >> > months ago.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I think we can recognize that our past history has been that
> >> > there are
> >> > > > > > > often 3 or 4 RCs for our 2.x.0 releases.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Maybe we should be cherry picking some PRs on master to 2.11
> >> > before we
> >> > > > > > > start the process? It may or may not save an RC but it will
> >> give
> >> > us time to
> >> > > > > > > be realistic about a reasonable cadence from 2.10.x to 2.11.x
> >> to
> >> > 2.12.x …
> >> > > > > > > it’s hard to support many versions at once. The CVE announced
> >> > today took
> >> > > > > > > months to be included in all of our current releases from
> >> 2.7.5
> >> > to 2.10.2.
> >> > > > > > > Separation of C++ and Pulsar client releases from Pulsar
> >> > releases helps
> >> > > > > > > here, but it may not with the next security issue.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Regards,
> >> > > > > > > Dave
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Enrico
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> >> > > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> >> > > > > > > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more
> >> > months.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> >> > > > > > > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for
> >> now.
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a
> >> chaos
> >> > test for
> >> > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > >>>> case.
> >> > > > > > > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release
> >> > 4.15.3 since
> >> > > > > > > >>> 4.15.2
> >> > > > > > > >>>> has regressions [1]
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Penghui
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <
> >> > mmarshall@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I
> >> > think it
> >> > > > > > > makes
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating
> >> > the branch
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added
> >> over
> >> > the past 3
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> months.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to
> >> > clean up PR
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> Michael
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <
> >> > eolivelli@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to
> >> cut
> >> > 2.11.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from
> >> > branch-2.11
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch
> >> out
> >> > of the
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening
> >> > before
> >> > > > > > > >>> cutting
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> the release.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be
> >> > confirmed or
> >> > > > > > > >>> fixed
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the
> >> > folks you
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> created the issue.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the
> >> problem
> >> > with
> >> > > > > > > Pulsar.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week
> >> before
> >> > having more
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The
> >> > problem is
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4
> >> > hours) of a
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA
> >> > environment.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Enrico
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <
> >> > mmarshall@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release
> >> > branches, and
> >> > > > > > > planning
> >> > > > > > > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will
> >> > make that
> >> > > > > > > problem
> >> > > > > > > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7
> >> and
> >> > 2.8.
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > >>> Michael
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <
> >> > penghui@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more
> >> > uncertainty, no?
> >> > > > > > > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to
> >> > branch-2.11.
> >> > > > > > > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch.
> >> > Maybe new
> >> > > > > > > >>>> regressions
> >> > > > > > > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to
> >> > have a
> >> > > > > > > 2.11.0
> >> > > > > > > >>>> release.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> >> > > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> >> > > > > > > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more
> >> > months.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> >> > > > > > > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for
> >> now.
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a
> >> chaos
> >> > test for
> >> > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > >>>> case.
> >> > > > > > > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release
> >> > 4.15.3 since
> >> > > > > > > >>> 4.15.2
> >> > > > > > > >>>> has regressions [1]
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Penghui
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <
> >> > mmarshall@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I
> >> > think it
> >> > > > > > > makes
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating
> >> > the branch
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added
> >> over
> >> > the past 3
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> months.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to
> >> > clean up PR
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> Michael
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <
> >> > eolivelli@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to
> >> cut
> >> > 2.11.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from
> >> > branch-2.11
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch
> >> out
> >> > of the
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening
> >> > before
> >> > > > > > > >>> cutting
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> the release.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be
> >> > confirmed or
> >> > > > > > > >>> fixed
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the
> >> > folks you
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> created the issue.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the
> >> problem
> >> > with
> >> > > > > > > Pulsar.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week
> >> before
> >> > having more
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The
> >> > problem is
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4
> >> > hours) of a
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA
> >> > environment.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Enrico
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> >
> >> --
> >> Nicolò Boschi
> >>
> >

Re: Releasing current master as Pulsar 2.11.0 ?

Posted by guo jiwei <te...@apache.org>.

Hi
   I'm going to release 2.11 today.


Regards
Jiwei Guo


On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 9:52 AM guo jiwei <te...@apache.org> wrote:

> Most of you agree to use the previous branch-2.11 for release, I will
> start the release this week.
>
> Regards
> Jiwei Guo
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 4:23 AM Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My two cents,
>>
>> I think we should go forward with the current branch. All the cherry picks
>> were done in a thoughtful way.
>>
>> My assumption is that if we go down recutting the branch from the current
>> master, it will take at least a couple of weeks to get it in a stable
>> condition. Other than that, there’s still the time needed for rc, vote,
>> and
>> so on.
>>
>> From my understanding now the current branch is ready for an rc since we
>> upgraded bookkeeper and all the perf doubts are gone away.
>>
>> If we start with an rc this week, we’ll be likely able to release 2.11 in
>> December. (And we’re still 4 months late).
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Nicolò
>>
>> Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle 21:03 Yunze Xu
>> <yz...@streamnative.io.invalid>
>> ha scritto:
>>
>> > Hi Enrico,
>> >
>> > It's okay for me to cut the current master as 2.11.0, but since many new
>> > PRs
>> > were merged recently, I'm afraid some regressions might be introduced. I
>> > found
>> > some flaky tests (like [1]) recently, not sure whether they are caused
>> > by bugs. And
>> > there is also a PR [2] that tries to solve a bug but it also brings a
>> > regression. See
>> > my fix here: [3]
>> >
>> > Generally, when there are more PRs between two major releases, there
>> will
>> > be
>> > a higher possibility to introduce more unstable factors. So we must
>> > take it verfy
>> > carefully with the 2.11 release.
>> >
>> > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18480
>> > [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18454
>> > [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18486
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Yunze
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:30 AM Michael Marshall <mmarshall@apache.org
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > 3.0.0 means "breaking changes"
>> > >
>> > > PIP 175 [0] proposes a different meaning to 3.0.0. The proposed
>> > > meaning is that each major release is an LTS version. Here is the
>> > > exact wording:
>> > >
>> > > > The major version bump will not carry any special meaning in terms
>> of
>> > > > "big features" included in the release or breaking API changes.
>> > > > Instead, it would simply signal the type of the release.
>> > >
>> > > However, I don't remember a vote to adopt PIP 175. I see the
>> > > discussion on the ML [1], but I don't see the vote.
>> > >
>> > > - Michael
>> > >
>> > > [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966
>> > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rg1g083c06ozm5go6zo1jophg9y9zl2f
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:40 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle ore 15:26 Hang Chen
>> > > > <ch...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If we drop the current branch-2.11 and release based on the
>> master,
>> > > > > why not release 3.0.0 based on the master branch directly
>> according
>> > to
>> > > > > the new release plan [1].
>> > > >
>> > > > 3.0.0 means "breaking changes"
>> > > > current master is 100% compatible
>> > > >
>> > > > Enrico
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > If we cut the master branch and release Pulsar 2.11.0, we will
>> wait
>> > at
>> > > > > least three months before we cut 3.0.0.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > Hang
>> > > > >
>> > > > > guo jiwei <te...@apache.org> 于2022年11月14日周一 17:16写道：
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I found out that several PRs have been unable to cherry-pick to
>> > 2.11 today.
>> > > > > > I agree to cut the new branch based on the master and turn off
>> the
>> > > > > > new/unstable features in branch-2.11.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Regards
>> > > > > > Tboy
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM Dave Fisher <
>> wave4dave@comcast.net>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Inline
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 2022, at 6:55 AM, Enrico Olivelli <
>> > eolivelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > PengHui,
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >> Il giorno mar 1 nov 2022 alle ore 07:51 PengHui Li
>> > > > > > > >> <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >>> As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> Agree. We should clarify this one.
>> > > > > > > >> I think we can stop to provide new releases for 2.7
>> > > > > > > >> and only security or critical bugs for 2.8 (one more
>> official
>> > release)
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 will make
>> the
>> > > > > > > >> release strategy clear.
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> LTS -> 36 months (24 + 12)
>> > > > > > > >> Feature release -> 6 months (3+3)
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> Thanks,
>> > > > > > > >> Penghui
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <
>> > mmarshall@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release
>> > branches, and
>> > > > > > > planning
>> > > > > > > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will
>> > make that
>> > > > > > > problem
>> > > > > > > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7
>> and
>> > 2.8.
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
>> > > > > > > >>> Michael
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <
>> > penghui@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more
>> > uncertainty, no?
>> > > > > > > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to
>> > branch-2.11.
>> > > > > > > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch.
>> > Maybe new
>> > > > > > > >>>> regressions
>> > > > > > > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to
>> > have a
>> > > > > > > 2.11.0
>> > > > > > > >>>> release.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I am not sure.
>> > > > > > > > I don't know if anyone is actively testing the 2.11 branch
>> > more than
>> > > > > > > > the master branch.
>> > > > > > > > On my side the (automated) testing that I do with my
>> > colleagues on
>> > > > > > > > branch-2.11 is basically the same as for the master branch.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I believe that if we want to cut a 2.11 release that is not
>> > branched
>> > > > > > > > again from the master branch
>> > > > > > > > we really must start the release as soon as BK 4.15.3 is
>> > released
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I understand that Bookkeeper issues have Ben what’s blocking
>> 2.11
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Many people contributed features to the master branch that
>> > cannot be
>> > > > > > > > shipped with 2.11 because
>> > > > > > > > they are considered "breaking changes".
>> > > > > > > > But 2.11 was supposed to be released in August, more than 3
>> > months ago.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I think we can recognize that our past history has been that
>> > there are
>> > > > > > > often 3 or 4 RCs for our 2.x.0 releases.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Maybe we should be cherry picking some PRs on master to 2.11
>> > before we
>> > > > > > > start the process? It may or may not save an RC but it will
>> give
>> > us time to
>> > > > > > > be realistic about a reasonable cadence from 2.10.x to 2.11.x
>> to
>> > 2.12.x …
>> > > > > > > it’s hard to support many versions at once. The CVE announced
>> > today took
>> > > > > > > months to be included in all of our current releases from
>> 2.7.5
>> > to 2.10.2.
>> > > > > > > Separation of C++ and Pulsar client releases from Pulsar
>> > releases helps
>> > > > > > > here, but it may not with the next security issue.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > > > Dave
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Enrico
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
>> > > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
>> > > > > > > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more
>> > months.
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
>> > > > > > > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for
>> now.
>> > > > > > > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a
>> chaos
>> > test for
>> > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > >>>> case.
>> > > > > > > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release
>> > 4.15.3 since
>> > > > > > > >>> 4.15.2
>> > > > > > > >>>> has regressions [1]
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > > > >>>> Penghui
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <
>> > mmarshall@apache.org
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I
>> > think it
>> > > > > > > makes
>> > > > > > > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating
>> > the branch
>> > > > > > > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added
>> over
>> > the past 3
>> > > > > > > >>>>> months.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to
>> > clean up PR
>> > > > > > > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > > > >>>>> Michael
>> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <
>> > eolivelli@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to
>> cut
>> > 2.11.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from
>> > branch-2.11
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch
>> out
>> > of the
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening
>> > before
>> > > > > > > >>> cutting
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> the release.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be
>> > confirmed or
>> > > > > > > >>> fixed
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the
>> > folks you
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> created the issue.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the
>> problem
>> > with
>> > > > > > > Pulsar.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week
>> before
>> > having more
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The
>> > problem is
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4
>> > hours) of a
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA
>> > environment.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Enrico
>> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <
>> > mmarshall@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release
>> > branches, and
>> > > > > > > planning
>> > > > > > > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will
>> > make that
>> > > > > > > problem
>> > > > > > > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7
>> and
>> > 2.8.
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
>> > > > > > > >>> Michael
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <
>> > penghui@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more
>> > uncertainty, no?
>> > > > > > > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to
>> > branch-2.11.
>> > > > > > > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch.
>> > Maybe new
>> > > > > > > >>>> regressions
>> > > > > > > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to
>> > have a
>> > > > > > > 2.11.0
>> > > > > > > >>>> release.
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
>> > > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
>> > > > > > > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more
>> > months.
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
>> > > > > > > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for
>> now.
>> > > > > > > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a
>> chaos
>> > test for
>> > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > >>>> case.
>> > > > > > > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release
>> > 4.15.3 since
>> > > > > > > >>> 4.15.2
>> > > > > > > >>>> has regressions [1]
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > > > >>>> Penghui
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <
>> > mmarshall@apache.org
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I
>> > think it
>> > > > > > > makes
>> > > > > > > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating
>> > the branch
>> > > > > > > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added
>> over
>> > the past 3
>> > > > > > > >>>>> months.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to
>> > clean up PR
>> > > > > > > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > > > >>>>> Michael
>> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <
>> > eolivelli@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to
>> cut
>> > 2.11.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from
>> > branch-2.11
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch
>> out
>> > of the
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening
>> > before
>> > > > > > > >>> cutting
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> the release.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be
>> > confirmed or
>> > > > > > > >>> fixed
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the
>> > folks you
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> created the issue.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the
>> problem
>> > with
>> > > > > > > Pulsar.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week
>> before
>> > having more
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The
>> > problem is
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4
>> > hours) of a
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA
>> > environment.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Enrico
>> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> >
>> --
>> Nicolò Boschi
>>
>

Re: Releasing current master as Pulsar 2.11.0 ?

Posted by guo jiwei <te...@apache.org>.

Most of you agree to use the previous branch-2.11 for release, I will start
the release this week.

Regards
Jiwei Guo


On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 4:23 AM Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My two cents,
>
> I think we should go forward with the current branch. All the cherry picks
> were done in a thoughtful way.
>
> My assumption is that if we go down recutting the branch from the current
> master, it will take at least a couple of weeks to get it in a stable
> condition. Other than that, there’s still the time needed for rc, vote, and
> so on.
>
> From my understanding now the current branch is ready for an rc since we
> upgraded bookkeeper and all the perf doubts are gone away.
>
> If we start with an rc this week, we’ll be likely able to release 2.11 in
> December. (And we’re still 4 months late).
>
>
> Cheers,
> Nicolò
>
> Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle 21:03 Yunze Xu <yzxu@streamnative.io.invalid
> >
> ha scritto:
>
> > Hi Enrico,
> >
> > It's okay for me to cut the current master as 2.11.0, but since many new
> > PRs
> > were merged recently, I'm afraid some regressions might be introduced. I
> > found
> > some flaky tests (like [1]) recently, not sure whether they are caused
> > by bugs. And
> > there is also a PR [2] that tries to solve a bug but it also brings a
> > regression. See
> > my fix here: [3]
> >
> > Generally, when there are more PRs between two major releases, there will
> > be
> > a higher possibility to introduce more unstable factors. So we must
> > take it verfy
> > carefully with the 2.11 release.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18480
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18454
> > [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18486
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yunze
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:30 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 3.0.0 means "breaking changes"
> > >
> > > PIP 175 [0] proposes a different meaning to 3.0.0. The proposed
> > > meaning is that each major release is an LTS version. Here is the
> > > exact wording:
> > >
> > > > The major version bump will not carry any special meaning in terms of
> > > > "big features" included in the release or breaking API changes.
> > > > Instead, it would simply signal the type of the release.
> > >
> > > However, I don't remember a vote to adopt PIP 175. I see the
> > > discussion on the ML [1], but I don't see the vote.
> > >
> > > - Michael
> > >
> > > [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966
> > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rg1g083c06ozm5go6zo1jophg9y9zl2f
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:40 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle ore 15:26 Hang Chen
> > > > <ch...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > > > >
> > > > > If we drop the current branch-2.11 and release based on the master,
> > > > > why not release 3.0.0 based on the master branch directly according
> > to
> > > > > the new release plan [1].
> > > >
> > > > 3.0.0 means "breaking changes"
> > > > current master is 100% compatible
> > > >
> > > > Enrico
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If we cut the master branch and release Pulsar 2.11.0, we will wait
> > at
> > > > > least three months before we cut 3.0.0.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Hang
> > > > >
> > > > > guo jiwei <te...@apache.org> 于2022年11月14日周一 17:16写道：
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I found out that several PRs have been unable to cherry-pick to
> > 2.11 today.
> > > > > > I agree to cut the new branch based on the master and turn off
> the
> > > > > > new/unstable features in branch-2.11.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Tboy
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM Dave Fisher <
> wave4dave@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Inline
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 2022, at 6:55 AM, Enrico Olivelli <
> > eolivelli@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > PengHui,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Il giorno mar 1 nov 2022 alle ore 07:51 PengHui Li
> > > > > > > >> <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Agree. We should clarify this one.
> > > > > > > >> I think we can stop to provide new releases for 2.7
> > > > > > > >> and only security or critical bugs for 2.8 (one more
> official
> > release)
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 will make the
> > > > > > > >> release strategy clear.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> LTS -> 36 months (24 + 12)
> > > > > > > >> Feature release -> 6 months (3+3)
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> Penghui
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <
> > mmarshall@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release
> > branches, and
> > > > > > > planning
> > > > > > > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will
> > make that
> > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and
> > 2.8.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>> Michael
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <
> > penghui@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more
> > uncertainty, no?
> > > > > > > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to
> > branch-2.11.
> > > > > > > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch.
> > Maybe new
> > > > > > > >>>> regressions
> > > > > > > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to
> > have a
> > > > > > > 2.11.0
> > > > > > > >>>> release.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am not sure.
> > > > > > > > I don't know if anyone is actively testing the 2.11 branch
> > more than
> > > > > > > > the master branch.
> > > > > > > > On my side the (automated) testing that I do with my
> > colleagues on
> > > > > > > > branch-2.11 is basically the same as for the master branch.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe that if we want to cut a 2.11 release that is not
> > branched
> > > > > > > > again from the master branch
> > > > > > > > we really must start the release as soon as BK 4.15.3 is
> > released
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I understand that Bookkeeper issues have Ben what’s blocking
> 2.11
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Many people contributed features to the master branch that
> > cannot be
> > > > > > > > shipped with 2.11 because
> > > > > > > > they are considered "breaking changes".
> > > > > > > > But 2.11 was supposed to be released in August, more than 3
> > months ago.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we can recognize that our past history has been that
> > there are
> > > > > > > often 3 or 4 RCs for our 2.x.0 releases.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe we should be cherry picking some PRs on master to 2.11
> > before we
> > > > > > > start the process? It may or may not save an RC but it will
> give
> > us time to
> > > > > > > be realistic about a reasonable cadence from 2.10.x to 2.11.x
> to
> > 2.12.x …
> > > > > > > it’s hard to support many versions at once. The CVE announced
> > today took
> > > > > > > months to be included in all of our current releases from 2.7.5
> > to 2.10.2.
> > > > > > > Separation of C++ and Pulsar client releases from Pulsar
> > releases helps
> > > > > > > here, but it may not with the next security issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Dave
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Enrico
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > > > > > > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more
> > months.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > > > > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for
> now.
> > > > > > > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos
> > test for
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>>> case.
> > > > > > > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release
> > 4.15.3 since
> > > > > > > >>> 4.15.2
> > > > > > > >>>> has regressions [1]
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>>> Penghui
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <
> > mmarshall@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I
> > think it
> > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating
> > the branch
> > > > > > > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over
> > the past 3
> > > > > > > >>>>> months.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to
> > clean up PR
> > > > > > > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>>>> Michael
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <
> > eolivelli@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut
> > 2.11.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from
> > branch-2.11
> > > > > > > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch
> out
> > of the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening
> > before
> > > > > > > >>> cutting
> > > > > > > >>>>>> the release.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be
> > confirmed or
> > > > > > > >>> fixed
> > > > > > > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the
> > folks you
> > > > > > > >>>>>> created the issue.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem
> > with
> > > > > > > Pulsar.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week before
> > having more
> > > > > > > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The
> > problem is
> > > > > > > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4
> > hours) of a
> > > > > > > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA
> > environment.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Enrico
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <
> > mmarshall@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release
> > branches, and
> > > > > > > planning
> > > > > > > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will
> > make that
> > > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and
> > 2.8.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>> Michael
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <
> > penghui@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more
> > uncertainty, no?
> > > > > > > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to
> > branch-2.11.
> > > > > > > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch.
> > Maybe new
> > > > > > > >>>> regressions
> > > > > > > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to
> > have a
> > > > > > > 2.11.0
> > > > > > > >>>> release.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > > > > > > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more
> > months.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > > > > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for
> now.
> > > > > > > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos
> > test for
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>>> case.
> > > > > > > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release
> > 4.15.3 since
> > > > > > > >>> 4.15.2
> > > > > > > >>>> has regressions [1]
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>>> Penghui
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <
> > mmarshall@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I
> > think it
> > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating
> > the branch
> > > > > > > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over
> > the past 3
> > > > > > > >>>>> months.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to
> > clean up PR
> > > > > > > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>>>> Michael
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <
> > eolivelli@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut
> > 2.11.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from
> > branch-2.11
> > > > > > > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch
> out
> > of the
> > > > > > > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening
> > before
> > > > > > > >>> cutting
> > > > > > > >>>>>> the release.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be
> > confirmed or
> > > > > > > >>> fixed
> > > > > > > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> > > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the
> > folks you
> > > > > > > >>>>>> created the issue.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem
> > with
> > > > > > > Pulsar.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week before
> > having more
> > > > > > > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The
> > problem is
> > > > > > > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4
> > hours) of a
> > > > > > > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA
> > environment.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Enrico
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> >
> --
> Nicolò Boschi
>

Re: Releasing current master as Pulsar 2.11.0 ?

Posted by Nicolò Boschi <bo...@gmail.com>.

My two cents,

I think we should go forward with the current branch. All the cherry picks
were done in a thoughtful way.

My assumption is that if we go down recutting the branch from the current
master, it will take at least a couple of weeks to get it in a stable
condition. Other than that, there’s still the time needed for rc, vote, and
so on.

From my understanding now the current branch is ready for an rc since we
upgraded bookkeeper and all the perf doubts are gone away.

If we start with an rc this week, we’ll be likely able to release 2.11 in
December. (And we’re still 4 months late).


Cheers,
Nicolò

Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle 21:03 Yunze Xu <yz...@streamnative.io.invalid>
ha scritto:

> Hi Enrico,
>
> It's okay for me to cut the current master as 2.11.0, but since many new
> PRs
> were merged recently, I'm afraid some regressions might be introduced. I
> found
> some flaky tests (like [1]) recently, not sure whether they are caused
> by bugs. And
> there is also a PR [2] that tries to solve a bug but it also brings a
> regression. See
> my fix here: [3]
>
> Generally, when there are more PRs between two major releases, there will
> be
> a higher possibility to introduce more unstable factors. So we must
> take it verfy
> carefully with the 2.11 release.
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18480
> [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18454
> [3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18486
>
> Thanks,
> Yunze
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:30 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 3.0.0 means "breaking changes"
> >
> > PIP 175 [0] proposes a different meaning to 3.0.0. The proposed
> > meaning is that each major release is an LTS version. Here is the
> > exact wording:
> >
> > > The major version bump will not carry any special meaning in terms of
> > > "big features" included in the release or breaking API changes.
> > > Instead, it would simply signal the type of the release.
> >
> > However, I don't remember a vote to adopt PIP 175. I see the
> > discussion on the ML [1], but I don't see the vote.
> >
> > - Michael
> >
> > [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966
> > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rg1g083c06ozm5go6zo1jophg9y9zl2f
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:40 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle ore 15:26 Hang Chen
> > > <ch...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > If we drop the current branch-2.11 and release based on the master,
> > > > why not release 3.0.0 based on the master branch directly according
> to
> > > > the new release plan [1].
> > >
> > > 3.0.0 means "breaking changes"
> > > current master is 100% compatible
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If we cut the master branch and release Pulsar 2.11.0, we will wait
> at
> > > > least three months before we cut 3.0.0.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Hang
> > > >
> > > > guo jiwei <te...@apache.org> 于2022年11月14日周一 17:16写道：
> > > > >
> > > > > I found out that several PRs have been unable to cherry-pick to
> 2.11 today.
> > > > > I agree to cut the new branch based on the master and turn off the
> > > > > new/unstable features in branch-2.11.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Tboy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Inline
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Nov 3, 2022, at 6:55 AM, Enrico Olivelli <
> eolivelli@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PengHui,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Il giorno mar 1 nov 2022 alle ore 07:51 PengHui Li
> > > > > > >> <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Agree. We should clarify this one.
> > > > > > >> I think we can stop to provide new releases for 2.7
> > > > > > >> and only security or critical bugs for 2.8 (one more official
> release)
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 will make the
> > > > > > >> release strategy clear.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> LTS -> 36 months (24 + 12)
> > > > > > >> Feature release -> 6 months (3+3)
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> Penghui
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <
> mmarshall@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release
> branches, and
> > > > > > planning
> > > > > > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will
> make that
> > > > > > problem
> > > > > > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and
> 2.8.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>> Michael
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <
> penghui@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more
> uncertainty, no?
> > > > > > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to
> branch-2.11.
> > > > > > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch.
> Maybe new
> > > > > > >>>> regressions
> > > > > > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to
> have a
> > > > > > 2.11.0
> > > > > > >>>> release.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am not sure.
> > > > > > > I don't know if anyone is actively testing the 2.11 branch
> more than
> > > > > > > the master branch.
> > > > > > > On my side the (automated) testing that I do with my
> colleagues on
> > > > > > > branch-2.11 is basically the same as for the master branch.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe that if we want to cut a 2.11 release that is not
> branched
> > > > > > > again from the master branch
> > > > > > > we really must start the release as soon as BK 4.15.3 is
> released
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I understand that Bookkeeper issues have Ben what’s blocking 2.11
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Many people contributed features to the master branch that
> cannot be
> > > > > > > shipped with 2.11 because
> > > > > > > they are considered "breaking changes".
> > > > > > > But 2.11 was supposed to be released in August, more than 3
> months ago.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we can recognize that our past history has been that
> there are
> > > > > > often 3 or 4 RCs for our 2.x.0 releases.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe we should be cherry picking some PRs on master to 2.11
> before we
> > > > > > start the process? It may or may not save an RC but it will give
> us time to
> > > > > > be realistic about a reasonable cadence from 2.10.x to 2.11.x to
> 2.12.x …
> > > > > > it’s hard to support many versions at once. The CVE announced
> today took
> > > > > > months to be included in all of our current releases from 2.7.5
> to 2.10.2.
> > > > > > Separation of C++ and Pulsar client releases from Pulsar
> releases helps
> > > > > > here, but it may not with the next security issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Dave
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Enrico
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > > > > > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more
> months.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > > > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
> > > > > > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos
> test for
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > >>>> case.
> > > > > > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release
> 4.15.3 since
> > > > > > >>> 4.15.2
> > > > > > >>>> has regressions [1]
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>> Penghui
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <
> mmarshall@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I
> think it
> > > > > > makes
> > > > > > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating
> the branch
> > > > > > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over
> the past 3
> > > > > > >>>>> months.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to
> clean up PR
> > > > > > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>>> Michael
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <
> eolivelli@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut
> 2.11.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from
> branch-2.11
> > > > > > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out
> of the
> > > > > > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening
> before
> > > > > > >>> cutting
> > > > > > >>>>>> the release.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be
> confirmed or
> > > > > > >>> fixed
> > > > > > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > > > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the
> folks you
> > > > > > >>>>>> created the issue.
> > > > > > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem
> with
> > > > > > Pulsar.
> > > > > > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week before
> having more
> > > > > > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The
> problem is
> > > > > > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4
> hours) of a
> > > > > > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA
> environment.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Enrico
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <
> mmarshall@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release
> branches, and
> > > > > > planning
> > > > > > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will
> make that
> > > > > > problem
> > > > > > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and
> 2.8.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>> Michael
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <
> penghui@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more
> uncertainty, no?
> > > > > > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to
> branch-2.11.
> > > > > > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch.
> Maybe new
> > > > > > >>>> regressions
> > > > > > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to
> have a
> > > > > > 2.11.0
> > > > > > >>>> release.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > > > > > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more
> months.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > > > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
> > > > > > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos
> test for
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > >>>> case.
> > > > > > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release
> 4.15.3 since
> > > > > > >>> 4.15.2
> > > > > > >>>> has regressions [1]
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>> Penghui
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <
> mmarshall@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I
> think it
> > > > > > makes
> > > > > > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating
> the branch
> > > > > > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over
> the past 3
> > > > > > >>>>> months.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to
> clean up PR
> > > > > > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>>> Michael
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <
> eolivelli@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut
> 2.11.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from
> branch-2.11
> > > > > > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out
> of the
> > > > > > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening
> before
> > > > > > >>> cutting
> > > > > > >>>>>> the release.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be
> confirmed or
> > > > > > >>> fixed
> > > > > > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> > > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > > > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the
> folks you
> > > > > > >>>>>> created the issue.
> > > > > > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem
> with
> > > > > > Pulsar.
> > > > > > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week before
> having more
> > > > > > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The
> problem is
> > > > > > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4
> hours) of a
> > > > > > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA
> environment.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Enrico
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
>
-- 
Nicolò Boschi

Re: Releasing current master as Pulsar 2.11.0 ?

Posted by Yunze Xu <yz...@streamnative.io.INVALID>.

Hi Enrico,

It's okay for me to cut the current master as 2.11.0, but since many new PRs
were merged recently, I'm afraid some regressions might be introduced. I found
some flaky tests (like [1]) recently, not sure whether they are caused
by bugs. And
there is also a PR [2] that tries to solve a bug but it also brings a
regression. See
my fix here: [3]

Generally, when there are more PRs between two major releases, there will be
a higher possibility to introduce more unstable factors. So we must
take it verfy
carefully with the 2.11 release.

[1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18480
[2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18454
[3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18486

Thanks,
Yunze


On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:30 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > 3.0.0 means "breaking changes"
>
> PIP 175 [0] proposes a different meaning to 3.0.0. The proposed
> meaning is that each major release is an LTS version. Here is the
> exact wording:
>
> > The major version bump will not carry any special meaning in terms of
> > "big features" included in the release or breaking API changes.
> > Instead, it would simply signal the type of the release.
>
> However, I don't remember a vote to adopt PIP 175. I see the
> discussion on the ML [1], but I don't see the vote.
>
> - Michael
>
> [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rg1g083c06ozm5go6zo1jophg9y9zl2f
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:40 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle ore 15:26 Hang Chen
> > <ch...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > If we drop the current branch-2.11 and release based on the master,
> > > why not release 3.0.0 based on the master branch directly according to
> > > the new release plan [1].
> >
> > 3.0.0 means "breaking changes"
> > current master is 100% compatible
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> > >
> > > If we cut the master branch and release Pulsar 2.11.0, we will wait at
> > > least three months before we cut 3.0.0.
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Hang
> > >
> > > guo jiwei <te...@apache.org> 于2022年11月14日周一 17:16写道：
> > > >
> > > > I found out that several PRs have been unable to cherry-pick to 2.11 today.
> > > > I agree to cut the new branch based on the master and turn off the
> > > > new/unstable features in branch-2.11.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Tboy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Inline
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Nov 3, 2022, at 6:55 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PengHui,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Il giorno mar 1 nov 2022 alle ore 07:51 PengHui Li
> > > > > >> <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Agree. We should clarify this one.
> > > > > >> I think we can stop to provide new releases for 2.7
> > > > > >> and only security or critical bugs for 2.8 (one more official release)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 will make the
> > > > > >> release strategy clear.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> LTS -> 36 months (24 + 12)
> > > > > >> Feature release -> 6 months (3+3)
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> Penghui
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and
> > > > > planning
> > > > > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that
> > > > > problem
> > > > > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>> Michael
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
> > > > > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
> > > > > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
> > > > > >>>> regressions
> > > > > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a
> > > > > 2.11.0
> > > > > >>>> release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am not sure.
> > > > > > I don't know if anyone is actively testing the 2.11 branch more than
> > > > > > the master branch.
> > > > > > On my side the (automated) testing that I do with my colleagues on
> > > > > > branch-2.11 is basically the same as for the master branch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe that if we want to cut a 2.11 release that is not branched
> > > > > > again from the master branch
> > > > > > we really must start the release as soon as BK 4.15.3 is released
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand that Bookkeeper issues have Ben what’s blocking 2.11
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Many people contributed features to the master branch that cannot be
> > > > > > shipped with 2.11 because
> > > > > > they are considered "breaking changes".
> > > > > > But 2.11 was supposed to be released in August, more than 3 months ago.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we can recognize that our past history has been that there are
> > > > > often 3 or 4 RCs for our 2.x.0 releases.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe we should be cherry picking some PRs on master to 2.11 before we
> > > > > start the process? It may or may not save an RC but it will give us time to
> > > > > be realistic about a reasonable cadence from 2.10.x to 2.11.x to 2.12.x …
> > > > > it’s hard to support many versions at once. The CVE announced today took
> > > > > months to be included in all of our current releases from 2.7.5 to 2.10.2.
> > > > > Separation of C++ and Pulsar client releases from Pulsar releases helps
> > > > > here, but it may not with the next security issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Dave
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Enrico
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > > > > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
> > > > > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for
> > > > > that
> > > > > >>>> case.
> > > > > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since
> > > > > >>> 4.15.2
> > > > > >>>> has regressions [1]
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>> Penghui
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mmarshall@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it
> > > > > makes
> > > > > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
> > > > > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
> > > > > >>>>> months.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
> > > > > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>> Michael
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
> > > > > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
> > > > > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening before
> > > > > >>> cutting
> > > > > >>>>>> the release.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or
> > > > > >>> fixed
> > > > > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
> > > > > >>>>>> created the issue.
> > > > > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with
> > > > > Pulsar.
> > > > > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
> > > > > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
> > > > > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
> > > > > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA environment.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Enrico
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and
> > > > > planning
> > > > > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that
> > > > > problem
> > > > > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>> Michael
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
> > > > > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
> > > > > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
> > > > > >>>> regressions
> > > > > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a
> > > > > 2.11.0
> > > > > >>>> release.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > > > > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
> > > > > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for
> > > > > that
> > > > > >>>> case.
> > > > > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since
> > > > > >>> 4.15.2
> > > > > >>>> has regressions [1]
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>> Penghui
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mmarshall@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it
> > > > > makes
> > > > > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
> > > > > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
> > > > > >>>>> months.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
> > > > > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>> Michael
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
> > > > > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
> > > > > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening before
> > > > > >>> cutting
> > > > > >>>>>> the release.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or
> > > > > >>> fixed
> > > > > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> > > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
> > > > > >>>>>> created the issue.
> > > > > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with
> > > > > Pulsar.
> > > > > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
> > > > > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
> > > > > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
> > > > > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA environment.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Enrico
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > >

Re: Releasing current master as Pulsar 2.11.0 ?

Posted by Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>.

> 3.0.0 means "breaking changes"

PIP 175 [0] proposes a different meaning to 3.0.0. The proposed
meaning is that each major release is an LTS version. Here is the
exact wording:

> The major version bump will not carry any special meaning in terms of
> "big features" included in the release or breaking API changes.
> Instead, it would simply signal the type of the release.

However, I don't remember a vote to adopt PIP 175. I see the
discussion on the ML [1], but I don't see the vote.

- Michael

[0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966
[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/rg1g083c06ozm5go6zo1jophg9y9zl2f

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:40 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle ore 15:26 Hang Chen
> <ch...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> >
> > If we drop the current branch-2.11 and release based on the master,
> > why not release 3.0.0 based on the master branch directly according to
> > the new release plan [1].
>
> 3.0.0 means "breaking changes"
> current master is 100% compatible
>
> Enrico
>
> >
> > If we cut the master branch and release Pulsar 2.11.0, we will wait at
> > least three months before we cut 3.0.0.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Hang
> >
> > guo jiwei <te...@apache.org> 于2022年11月14日周一 17:16写道：
> > >
> > > I found out that several PRs have been unable to cherry-pick to 2.11 today.
> > > I agree to cut the new branch based on the master and turn off the
> > > new/unstable features in branch-2.11.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Tboy
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Inline
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > > On Nov 3, 2022, at 6:55 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > PengHui,
> > > > >
> > > > >> Il giorno mar 1 nov 2022 alle ore 07:51 PengHui Li
> > > > >> <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Agree. We should clarify this one.
> > > > >> I think we can stop to provide new releases for 2.7
> > > > >> and only security or critical bugs for 2.8 (one more official release)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 will make the
> > > > >> release strategy clear.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> LTS -> 36 months (24 + 12)
> > > > >> Feature release -> 6 months (3+3)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Penghui
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and
> > > > planning
> > > > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that
> > > > problem
> > > > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> Michael
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
> > > > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
> > > > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
> > > > >>>> regressions
> > > > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a
> > > > 2.11.0
> > > > >>>> release.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not sure.
> > > > > I don't know if anyone is actively testing the 2.11 branch more than
> > > > > the master branch.
> > > > > On my side the (automated) testing that I do with my colleagues on
> > > > > branch-2.11 is basically the same as for the master branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe that if we want to cut a 2.11 release that is not branched
> > > > > again from the master branch
> > > > > we really must start the release as soon as BK 4.15.3 is released
> > > >
> > > > I understand that Bookkeeper issues have Ben what’s blocking 2.11
> > > > >
> > > > > Many people contributed features to the master branch that cannot be
> > > > > shipped with 2.11 because
> > > > > they are considered "breaking changes".
> > > > > But 2.11 was supposed to be released in August, more than 3 months ago.
> > > >
> > > > I think we can recognize that our past history has been that there are
> > > > often 3 or 4 RCs for our 2.x.0 releases.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe we should be cherry picking some PRs on master to 2.11 before we
> > > > start the process? It may or may not save an RC but it will give us time to
> > > > be realistic about a reasonable cadence from 2.10.x to 2.11.x to 2.12.x …
> > > > it’s hard to support many versions at once. The CVE announced today took
> > > > months to be included in all of our current releases from 2.7.5 to 2.10.2.
> > > > Separation of C++ and Pulsar client releases from Pulsar releases helps
> > > > here, but it may not with the next security issue.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Dave
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Enrico
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > > > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
> > > > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for
> > > > that
> > > > >>>> case.
> > > > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since
> > > > >>> 4.15.2
> > > > >>>> has regressions [1]
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>> Penghui
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mmarshall@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it
> > > > makes
> > > > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
> > > > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
> > > > >>>>> months.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
> > > > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>> Michael
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
> > > > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
> > > > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening before
> > > > >>> cutting
> > > > >>>>>> the release.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or
> > > > >>> fixed
> > > > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
> > > > >>>>>> created the issue.
> > > > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with
> > > > Pulsar.
> > > > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
> > > > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
> > > > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
> > > > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA environment.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Enrico
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and
> > > > planning
> > > > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that
> > > > problem
> > > > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> Michael
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
> > > > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
> > > > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
> > > > >>>> regressions
> > > > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a
> > > > 2.11.0
> > > > >>>> release.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > > > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
> > > > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for
> > > > that
> > > > >>>> case.
> > > > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since
> > > > >>> 4.15.2
> > > > >>>> has regressions [1]
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>> Penghui
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mmarshall@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it
> > > > makes
> > > > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
> > > > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
> > > > >>>>> months.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
> > > > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>> Michael
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
> > > > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
> > > > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening before
> > > > >>> cutting
> > > > >>>>>> the release.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or
> > > > >>> fixed
> > > > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> > > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
> > > > >>>>>> created the issue.
> > > > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with
> > > > Pulsar.
> > > > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
> > > > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
> > > > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
> > > > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA environment.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Enrico
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >

Re: Releasing current master as Pulsar 2.11.0 ?

Posted by Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>.

Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle ore 15:26 Hang Chen
<ch...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>
> If we drop the current branch-2.11 and release based on the master,
> why not release 3.0.0 based on the master branch directly according to
> the new release plan [1].

3.0.0 means "breaking changes"
current master is 100% compatible

Enrico

>
> If we cut the master branch and release Pulsar 2.11.0, we will wait at
> least three months before we cut 3.0.0.
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966
>
> Thanks,
> Hang
>
> guo jiwei <te...@apache.org> 于2022年11月14日周一 17:16写道：
> >
> > I found out that several PRs have been unable to cherry-pick to 2.11 today.
> > I agree to cut the new branch based on the master and turn off the
> > new/unstable features in branch-2.11.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Tboy
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Inline
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On Nov 3, 2022, at 6:55 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > PengHui,
> > > >
> > > >> Il giorno mar 1 nov 2022 alle ore 07:51 PengHui Li
> > > >> <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > > >>
> > > >>> As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> > > >>
> > > >> Agree. We should clarify this one.
> > > >> I think we can stop to provide new releases for 2.7
> > > >> and only security or critical bugs for 2.8 (one more official release)
> > > >>
> > > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 will make the
> > > >> release strategy clear.
> > > >>
> > > >> LTS -> 36 months (24 + 12)
> > > >> Feature release -> 6 months (3+3)
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Penghui
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and
> > > planning
> > > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that
> > > problem
> > > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Michael
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
> > > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
> > > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
> > > >>>> regressions
> > > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a
> > > 2.11.0
> > > >>>> release.
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure.
> > > > I don't know if anyone is actively testing the 2.11 branch more than
> > > > the master branch.
> > > > On my side the (automated) testing that I do with my colleagues on
> > > > branch-2.11 is basically the same as for the master branch.
> > > >
> > > > I believe that if we want to cut a 2.11 release that is not branched
> > > > again from the master branch
> > > > we really must start the release as soon as BK 4.15.3 is released
> > >
> > > I understand that Bookkeeper issues have Ben what’s blocking 2.11
> > > >
> > > > Many people contributed features to the master branch that cannot be
> > > > shipped with 2.11 because
> > > > they are considered "breaking changes".
> > > > But 2.11 was supposed to be released in August, more than 3 months ago.
> > >
> > > I think we can recognize that our past history has been that there are
> > > often 3 or 4 RCs for our 2.x.0 releases.
> > >
> > > Maybe we should be cherry picking some PRs on master to 2.11 before we
> > > start the process? It may or may not save an RC but it will give us time to
> > > be realistic about a reasonable cadence from 2.10.x to 2.11.x to 2.12.x …
> > > it’s hard to support many versions at once. The CVE announced today took
> > > months to be included in all of our current releases from 2.7.5 to 2.10.2.
> > > Separation of C++ and Pulsar client releases from Pulsar releases helps
> > > here, but it may not with the next security issue.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Dave
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Enrico
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
> > > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for
> > > that
> > > >>>> case.
> > > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since
> > > >>> 4.15.2
> > > >>>> has regressions [1]
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>> Penghui
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mmarshall@apache.org
> > > >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it
> > > makes
> > > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
> > > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
> > > >>>>> months.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
> > > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>> Michael
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
> > > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
> > > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening before
> > > >>> cutting
> > > >>>>>> the release.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or
> > > >>> fixed
> > > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
> > > >>>>>> created the issue.
> > > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with
> > > Pulsar.
> > > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
> > > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
> > > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
> > > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA environment.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Enrico
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and
> > > planning
> > > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that
> > > problem
> > > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Michael
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
> > > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
> > > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
> > > >>>> regressions
> > > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a
> > > 2.11.0
> > > >>>> release.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
> > > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for
> > > that
> > > >>>> case.
> > > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since
> > > >>> 4.15.2
> > > >>>> has regressions [1]
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>> Penghui
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mmarshall@apache.org
> > > >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it
> > > makes
> > > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
> > > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
> > > >>>>> months.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
> > > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>> Michael
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
> > > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
> > > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening before
> > > >>> cutting
> > > >>>>>> the release.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or
> > > >>> fixed
> > > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> > > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
> > > >>>>>> created the issue.
> > > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with
> > > Pulsar.
> > > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
> > > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
> > > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
> > > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA environment.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Enrico
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> > >

Re: Releasing current master as Pulsar 2.11.0 ?

Posted by Hang Chen <ch...@apache.org>.

If we drop the current branch-2.11 and release based on the master,
why not release 3.0.0 based on the master branch directly according to
the new release plan [1].

If we cut the master branch and release Pulsar 2.11.0, we will wait at
least three months before we cut 3.0.0.


[1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966

Thanks,
Hang

guo jiwei <te...@apache.org> 于2022年11月14日周一 17:16写道：
>
> I found out that several PRs have been unable to cherry-pick to 2.11 today.
> I agree to cut the new branch based on the master and turn off the
> new/unstable features in branch-2.11.
>
>
>
> Regards
> Tboy
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Inline
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Nov 3, 2022, at 6:55 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > PengHui,
> > >
> > >> Il giorno mar 1 nov 2022 alle ore 07:51 PengHui Li
> > >> <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > >>
> > >>> As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> > >>
> > >> Agree. We should clarify this one.
> > >> I think we can stop to provide new releases for 2.7
> > >> and only security or critical bugs for 2.8 (one more official release)
> > >>
> > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 will make the
> > >> release strategy clear.
> > >>
> > >> LTS -> 36 months (24 + 12)
> > >> Feature release -> 6 months (3+3)
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Penghui
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and
> > planning
> > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that
> > problem
> > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Michael
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
> > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
> > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
> > >>>> regressions
> > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a
> > 2.11.0
> > >>>> release.
> > >
> > > I am not sure.
> > > I don't know if anyone is actively testing the 2.11 branch more than
> > > the master branch.
> > > On my side the (automated) testing that I do with my colleagues on
> > > branch-2.11 is basically the same as for the master branch.
> > >
> > > I believe that if we want to cut a 2.11 release that is not branched
> > > again from the master branch
> > > we really must start the release as soon as BK 4.15.3 is released
> >
> > I understand that Bookkeeper issues have Ben what’s blocking 2.11
> > >
> > > Many people contributed features to the master branch that cannot be
> > > shipped with 2.11 because
> > > they are considered "breaking changes".
> > > But 2.11 was supposed to be released in August, more than 3 months ago.
> >
> > I think we can recognize that our past history has been that there are
> > often 3 or 4 RCs for our 2.x.0 releases.
> >
> > Maybe we should be cherry picking some PRs on master to 2.11 before we
> > start the process? It may or may not save an RC but it will give us time to
> > be realistic about a reasonable cadence from 2.10.x to 2.11.x to 2.12.x …
> > it’s hard to support many versions at once. The CVE announced today took
> > months to be included in all of our current releases from 2.7.5 to 2.10.2.
> > Separation of C++ and Pulsar client releases from Pulsar releases helps
> > here, but it may not with the next security issue.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> > >
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>
> > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
> > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for
> > that
> > >>>> case.
> > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since
> > >>> 4.15.2
> > >>>> has regressions [1]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Penghui
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mmarshall@apache.org
> > >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it
> > makes
> > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
> > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
> > >>>>> months.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
> > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>> Michael
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com
> > >
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
> > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
> > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening before
> > >>> cutting
> > >>>>>> the release.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or
> > >>> fixed
> > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
> > >>>>>> created the issue.
> > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with
> > Pulsar.
> > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
> > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
> > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
> > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA environment.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Enrico
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and
> > planning
> > >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that
> > problem
> > >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Michael
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
> > >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
> > >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
> > >>>> regressions
> > >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a
> > 2.11.0
> > >>>> release.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
> > >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for
> > that
> > >>>> case.
> > >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since
> > >>> 4.15.2
> > >>>> has regressions [1]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Penghui
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mmarshall@apache.org
> > >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it
> > makes
> > >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
> > >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
> > >>>>> months.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
> > >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>> Michael
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com
> > >
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
> > >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
> > >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening before
> > >>> cutting
> > >>>>>> the release.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or
> > >>> fixed
> > >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> > >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
> > >>>>>> created the issue.
> > >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with
> > Pulsar.
> > >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
> > >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
> > >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
> > >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA environment.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Enrico
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
> >

Re: Releasing current master as Pulsar 2.11.0 ?

Posted by guo jiwei <te...@apache.org>.

I found out that several PRs have been unable to cherry-pick to 2.11 today.
I agree to cut the new branch based on the master and turn off the
new/unstable features in branch-2.11.



Regards
Tboy


On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Inline
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 3, 2022, at 6:55 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > PengHui,
> >
> >> Il giorno mar 1 nov 2022 alle ore 07:51 PengHui Li
> >> <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> >>
> >>> As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> >>
> >> Agree. We should clarify this one.
> >> I think we can stop to provide new releases for 2.7
> >> and only security or critical bugs for 2.8 (one more official release)
> >>
> >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 will make the
> >> release strategy clear.
> >>
> >> LTS -> 36 months (24 + 12)
> >> Feature release -> 6 months (3+3)
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Penghui
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and
> planning
> >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that
> problem
> >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Michael
> >>>
> >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
> >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
> >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
> >>>> regressions
> >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a
> 2.11.0
> >>>> release.
> >
> > I am not sure.
> > I don't know if anyone is actively testing the 2.11 branch more than
> > the master branch.
> > On my side the (automated) testing that I do with my colleagues on
> > branch-2.11 is basically the same as for the master branch.
> >
> > I believe that if we want to cut a 2.11 release that is not branched
> > again from the master branch
> > we really must start the release as soon as BK 4.15.3 is released
>
> I understand that Bookkeeper issues have Ben what’s blocking 2.11
> >
> > Many people contributed features to the master branch that cannot be
> > shipped with 2.11 because
> > they are considered "breaking changes".
> > But 2.11 was supposed to be released in August, more than 3 months ago.
>
> I think we can recognize that our past history has been that there are
> often 3 or 4 RCs for our 2.x.0 releases.
>
> Maybe we should be cherry picking some PRs on master to 2.11 before we
> start the process? It may or may not save an RC but it will give us time to
> be realistic about a reasonable cadence from 2.10.x to 2.11.x to 2.12.x …
> it’s hard to support many versions at once. The CVE announced today took
> months to be included in all of our current releases from 2.7.5 to 2.10.2.
> Separation of C++ and Pulsar client releases from Pulsar releases helps
> here, but it may not with the next security issue.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
> >
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.
> >>>>
> >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
> >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for
> that
> >>>> case.
> >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since
> >>> 4.15.2
> >>>> has regressions [1]
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Penghui
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mmarshall@apache.org
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it
> makes
> >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
> >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
> >>>>> months.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
> >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Michael
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com
> >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
> >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
> >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening before
> >>> cutting
> >>>>>> the release.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or
> >>> fixed
> >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
> >>>>>> created the issue.
> >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with
> Pulsar.
> >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
> >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
> >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
> >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA environment.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Enrico
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and
> planning
> >>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that
> problem
> >>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Michael
> >>>
> >>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
> >>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
> >>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
> >>>> regressions
> >>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a
> 2.11.0
> >>>> release.
> >>>>
> >>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> >>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.
> >>>>
> >>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> >>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
> >>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for
> that
> >>>> case.
> >>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since
> >>> 4.15.2
> >>>> has regressions [1]
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Penghui
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mmarshall@apache.org
> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it
> makes
> >>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
> >>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
> >>>>> months.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
> >>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Michael
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@gmail.com
> >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
> >>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
> >>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening before
> >>> cutting
> >>>>>> the release.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or
> >>> fixed
> >>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
> >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> >>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
> >>>>>> created the issue.
> >>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with
> Pulsar.
> >>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
> >>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
> >>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
> >>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA environment.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thoughts ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Enrico
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
>
>

Re: Releasing current master as Pulsar 2.11.0 ?

Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@comcast.net>.

Inline

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 3, 2022, at 6:55 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> PengHui,
> 
>> Il giorno mar 1 nov 2022 alle ore 07:51 PengHui Li
>> <pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>> 
>>> As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
>> 
>> Agree. We should clarify this one.
>> I think we can stop to provide new releases for 2.7
>> and only security or critical bugs for 2.8 (one more official release)
>> 
>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 will make the
>> release strategy clear.
>> 
>> LTS -> 36 months (24 + 12)
>> Feature release -> 6 months (3+3)
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Penghui
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and planning
>>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that problem
>>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
>>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
>>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
>>>> regressions
>>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a 2.11.0
>>>> release.
> 
> I am not sure.
> I don't know if anyone is actively testing the 2.11 branch more than
> the master branch.
> On my side the (automated) testing that I do with my colleagues on
> branch-2.11 is basically the same as for the master branch.
> 
> I believe that if we want to cut a 2.11 release that is not branched
> again from the master branch
> we really must start the release as soon as BK 4.15.3 is released

I understand that Bookkeeper issues have Ben what’s blocking 2.11
> 
> Many people contributed features to the master branch that cannot be
> shipped with 2.11 because
> they are considered "breaking changes".
> But 2.11 was supposed to be released in August, more than 3 months ago.

I think we can recognize that our past history has been that there are often 3 or 4 RCs for our 2.x.0 releases.

Maybe we should be cherry picking some PRs on master to 2.11 before we start the process? It may or may not save an RC but it will give us time to be realistic about a reasonable cadence from 2.10.x to 2.11.x to 2.12.x … it’s hard to support many versions at once. The CVE announced today took months to be included in all of our current releases from 2.7.5 to 2.10.2. Separation of C++ and Pulsar client releases from Pulsar releases helps here, but it may not with the next security issue.

Regards,
Dave
> 
> 
> Enrico
> 
> 
>>>> 
>>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
>>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
>>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.
>>>> 
>>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
>>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
>>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for that
>>>> case.
>>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
>>>> 
>>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since
>>> 4.15.2
>>>> has regressions [1]
>>>> 
>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Penghui
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it makes
>>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
>>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
>>>>> months.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
>>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Michael
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
>>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
>>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening before
>>> cutting
>>>>>> the release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or
>>> fixed
>>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
>>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
>>>>>> created the issue.
>>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with Pulsar.
>>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
>>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
>>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
>>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA environment.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thoughts ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Enrico
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and planning
>>> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that problem
>>> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
>>>> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
>>>> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
>>>> regressions
>>>> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a 2.11.0
>>>> release.
>>>> 
>>>> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
>>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
>>>> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.
>>>> 
>>>> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
>>>> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
>>>> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for that
>>>> case.
>>>> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
>>>> 
>>>> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since
>>> 4.15.2
>>>> has regressions [1]
>>>> 
>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Penghui
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it makes
>>>>> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
>>>>> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
>>>>> months.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
>>>>> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Michael
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hello Pulsar fellows,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
>>>>>> and start with something that is already stale.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
>>>>>> current master branch and start the period of hardening before
>>> cutting
>>>>>> the release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or
>>> fixed
>>>>>> or closed as "not a problem":
>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
>>>>>> I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
>>>>>> created the issue.
>>>>>> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with Pulsar.
>>>>>> I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
>>>>>> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
>>>>>> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
>>>>>> third party project and only in some private QA environment.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thoughts ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Enrico
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>

Re: Releasing current master as Pulsar 2.11.0 ?

Posted by Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>.

PengHui,

Il giorno mar 1 nov 2022 alle ore 07:51 PengHui Li
<pe...@apache.org> ha scritto:
>
> > As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
>
> Agree. We should clarify this one.
> I think we can stop to provide new releases for 2.7
> and only security or critical bugs for 2.8 (one more official release)
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 will make the
> release strategy clear.
>
> LTS -> 36 months (24 + 12)
> Feature release -> 6 months (3+3)
>
> Thanks,
> Penghui
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and planning
> > to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that problem
> > worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Michael
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
> > > We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
> > > If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
> > > regressions
> > > will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a 2.11.0
> > > release.

I am not sure.
I don't know if anyone is actively testing the 2.11 branch more than
the master branch.
On my side the (automated) testing that I do with my colleagues on
branch-2.11 is basically the same as for the master branch.

I believe that if we want to cut a 2.11 release that is not branched
again from the master branch
we really must start the release as soon as BK 4.15.3 is released

Many people contributed features to the master branch that cannot be
shipped with 2.11 because
they are considered "breaking changes".
But 2.11 was supposed to be released in August, more than 3 months ago.


Enrico


> > >
> > > IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > > after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.
> > >
> > > For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
> > > Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for that
> > > case.
> > > We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> > >
> > > Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since
> > 4.15.2
> > > has regressions [1]
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Penghui
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it makes
> > > > sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> > > >
> > > > We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
> > > > will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
> > > > months.
> > > >
> > > > If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
> > > > tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
> > > > >
> > > > > The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
> > > > > and start with something that is already stale.
> > > > >
> > > > > I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
> > > > > current master branch and start the period of hardening before
> > cutting
> > > > > the release.
> > > > >
> > > > > IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or
> > fixed
> > > > > or closed as "not a problem":
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > > I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
> > > > > created the issue.
> > > > > Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with Pulsar.
> > > > > I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
> > > > > results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
> > > > > reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
> > > > > third party project and only in some private QA environment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Enrico
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and planning
> > to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that problem
> > worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Michael
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
> > > We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
> > > If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
> > > regressions
> > > will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a 2.11.0
> > > release.
> > >
> > > IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > > after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.
> > >
> > > For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
> > > Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for that
> > > case.
> > > We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> > >
> > > Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since
> > 4.15.2
> > > has regressions [1]
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Penghui
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it makes
> > > > sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> > > >
> > > > We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
> > > > will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
> > > > months.
> > > >
> > > > If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
> > > > tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
> > > > >
> > > > > The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
> > > > > and start with something that is already stale.
> > > > >
> > > > > I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
> > > > > current master branch and start the period of hardening before
> > cutting
> > > > > the release.
> > > > >
> > > > > IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or
> > fixed
> > > > > or closed as "not a problem":
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > > I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
> > > > > created the issue.
> > > > > Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with Pulsar.
> > > > > I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
> > > > > results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
> > > > > reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
> > > > > third party project and only in some private QA environment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Enrico
> > > >
> > >
> >

Re: Releasing current master as Pulsar 2.11.0 ?

Posted by PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>.

> As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.

Agree. We should clarify this one.
I think we can stop to provide new releases for 2.7
and only security or critical bugs for 2.8 (one more official release)

https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966 will make the
release strategy clear.

LTS -> 36 months (24 + 12)
Feature release -> 6 months (3+3)

Thanks,
Penghui

On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
wrote:

> I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and planning
> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that problem
> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
> > We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
> > If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
> > regressions
> > will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a 2.11.0
> > release.
> >
> > IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.
> >
> > For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
> > Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for that
> > case.
> > We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> >
> > Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since
> 4.15.2
> > has regressions [1]
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it makes
> > > sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> > >
> > > We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
> > > will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
> > > months.
> > >
> > > If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
> > > tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > > >
> > > > I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
> > > >
> > > > The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> > > >
> > > > I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
> > > > and start with something that is already stale.
> > > >
> > > > I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
> > > > current master branch and start the period of hardening before
> cutting
> > > > the release.
> > > >
> > > > IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or
> fixed
> > > > or closed as "not a problem":
> > > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
> > > > created the issue.
> > > > Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with Pulsar.
> > > > I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
> > > > results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
> > > > reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
> > > > third party project and only in some private QA environment.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts ?
> > > >
> > > > Enrico
> > >
> >
>

On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:15 PM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
wrote:

> I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and planning
> to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that problem
> worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
> > We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
> > If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
> > regressions
> > will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a 2.11.0
> > release.
> >
> > IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> > after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.
> >
> > For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
> > Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for that
> > case.
> > We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
> >
> > Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since
> 4.15.2
> > has regressions [1]
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it makes
> > > sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> > >
> > > We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
> > > will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
> > > months.
> > >
> > > If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
> > > tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > > >
> > > > I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
> > > >
> > > > The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> > > >
> > > > I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
> > > > and start with something that is already stale.
> > > >
> > > > I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
> > > > current master branch and start the period of hardening before
> cutting
> > > > the release.
> > > >
> > > > IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or
> fixed
> > > > or closed as "not a problem":
> > > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > > I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
> > > > created the issue.
> > > > Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with Pulsar.
> > > > I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
> > > > results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
> > > > reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
> > > > third party project and only in some private QA environment.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts ?
> > > >
> > > > Enrico
> > >
> >
>

Re: Releasing current master as Pulsar 2.11.0 ?

Posted by Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>.

I am concerned that we have too many active release branches, and planning
to follow 2.11.0 with 3.0.0 soon after feels like it will make that problem
worse. As it is, we already need to discuss EOL for 2.7 and 2.8.

Thanks,
Michael

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:55 PM PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org> wrote:

> Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
> We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
> If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
> regressions
> will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a 2.11.0
> release.
>
> IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
> after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.
>
> For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
> Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for that
> case.
> We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.
>
> Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since 4.15.2
> has regressions [1]
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523
>
> Thanks,
> Penghui
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it makes
> > sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
> >
> > We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
> > will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
> > months.
> >
> > If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
> > tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Michael
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Pulsar fellows,
> > >
> > > I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
> > >
> > > The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> > >
> > > In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> > >
> > > I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
> > > and start with something that is already stale.
> > >
> > > I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
> > > current master branch and start the period of hardening before cutting
> > > the release.
> > >
> > > IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or fixed
> > > or closed as "not a problem":
> > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > > I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
> > > created the issue.
> > > Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with Pulsar.
> > > I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
> > > results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
> > > reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
> > > third party project and only in some private QA environment.
> > >
> > > Thoughts ?
> > >
> > > Enrico
> >
>

Re: Releasing current master as Pulsar 2.11.0 ?

Posted by PengHui Li <pe...@apache.org>.

Releasing from the master branch will bring more uncertainty, no?
We have fixed many regressions that were introduced to branch-2.11.
If we cut a new branch-2.11 based on the master branch. Maybe new
regressions
will happen again. This may make us wait another month to have a 2.11.0
release.

IMO, we can start Pulsar 3.0 (follow
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/15966)
after 2.11.0 is released instead of waiting for 3 more months.

For https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
I don't think it's a blocker for the Pulsar release for now.
Yes, it is worth investigating more. We also tried a chaos test for that
case.
We haven't reproduced the problem on Pulsar.

Now, we are just waiting for the new BookKeeper release 4.15.3 since 4.15.2
has regressions [1]

[1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/3523

Thanks,
Penghui

On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:10 AM Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>
wrote:

> I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it makes
> sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.
>
> We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
> will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
> months.
>
> If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
> tags and milestones to prevent confusion.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Pulsar fellows,
> >
> > I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
> >
> > The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
> >
> > In the meantime many features went into master branch,
> >
> > I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
> > and start with something that is already stale.
> >
> > I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
> > current master branch and start the period of hardening before cutting
> > the release.
> >
> > IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or fixed
> > or closed as "not a problem":
> > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> > I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
> > created the issue.
> > Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with Pulsar.
> > I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
> > results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
> > reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
> > third party project and only in some private QA environment.
> >
> > Thoughts ?
> >
> > Enrico
>

Re: Releasing current master as Pulsar 2.11.0 ?

Posted by Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>.

I have not followed the branch-2.11 work closely, but I think it makes
sense to re-create branch-2.11 from the current master.

We created branch-2.11 almost 3 months ago. Re-creating the branch
will prevent unnecessary delay on new features added over the past 3
months.

If we follow through with this proposal, we will need to clean up PR
tags and milestones to prevent confusion.

Thanks,
Michael

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:31 AM Enrico Olivelli <eo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Pulsar fellows,
>
> I think that too much time passed since we wanted to cut 2.11.
>
> The branch-2.11 contains some code used by no one.
>
> In the meantime many features went into master branch,
>
> I don't think that it is worth it to cut a release from branch-2.11
> and start with something that is already stale.
>
> I propose to drop branch-2.11 and create a new branch out of the
> current master branch and start the period of hardening before cutting
> the release.
>
> IIUC we are waiting for this BookKeeper issue to be confirmed or fixed
> or closed as "not a problem":
> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3466
> I am personally working on that case together with the folks you
> created the issue.
> Honestly I have never been able to reproduce the problem with Pulsar.
> I believe that it will take at least another week before having more
> results about the investigations I am doing on BK. The problem is
> reproducible only on a long-running test (more than 4 hours) of a
> third party project and only in some private QA environment.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
> Enrico