Peng Hui, given the fact that Transactions are not something that you can use in production in 2.9, then we could move forward with this release.
But this would be a real pity, because we are stating that users should not use transactions because they are not stable. If it is a matter of fixing the problem reported by Nicolò, then we should fix it and let people try out transactions. We are not in a hurry, and as you said, if someone is in a hurry, they can build Pulsar from branch-2.9. We have the responsibility to cut good quality releases, and as we are contributing here all as volunteers there is no strict deadline. Also Nicolò reported the error because he has several integration tests that are not passing on 2.9.2rc0, we should take into consideration the voice of our users. I am not going to VOTE -1, but I will hold off casting a vote on 2.9.2RC0 Gao, please consider my vote as "-0" Enrico Il giorno mer 9 feb 2022 alle ore 09:14 PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > > Does this mean that transactions are not yet stable in 2.9? I think we > need to clarify this point and then communicate that to our users. > > At least currently it is not a stable version, all the components have been > completed > but at least not verified on a large scale, the performance needs to be > optimized. > Not all cases have been handled well. > > And look back to the PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097, it > does not block > the common case of transactions, there are many fixes not in 2.9.2 > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.3+transaction > > > Our time based release plan defined in PIP 47 does not define a > timeline for patch releases. Regarding patch releases, it only says > "We will also attempt, as a community to do bugfix releases as needed > for the last 4 releases > > We don't contain many fixes in 2.9.1 right? and 2.9.1 released at > 2021/12/20, > So when should we release 2.9.2? > > > I do not consider this a failure. One of the benefits of using an > open source project is that you can build it yourself. Given that > users have this option. > > The root cause is they need to wait a long time for a minor release right? > If it's a our desired outcome, why do we still do releases? > > > known regressions for stable features. We may not have known > about this regression in 2.9.1, but we know about it now, before the 2.9.2 > vote has closed. > > The 2.9.2 release process is already started and the regression is not > introduced in 2.9.2, > Will there be any problems in the 2.9.3 release? We didn't release a worse > version, > Essentially we want serious issues to be fixed as quickly as possible, but > we shouldn't delay > the release of other more important fixes > > Thanks, > Penghui > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 2:53 PM Michael Marshall <mmarsh...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > I am -0 for this release because of the transaction regression, > > assuming it is as bad as Enrico described. I don't know enough about > > the transaction feature's stability to give a "-1". > > > > > There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for all of > > > them to be completed > > > > Does this mean that transactions are not yet stable in 2.9? I think we > > need to clarify this point and then communicate that to our users. > > > > > We should follow the time-based release mode. > > > > Our time based release plan defined in PIP 47 does not define a > > timeline for patch releases. Regarding patch releases, it only says > > "We will also attempt, as a community to do bugfix releases as needed > > for the last 4 releases.". > > > > > I see many users can't wait for our release, > > > they build from the branch-2.9 manually. > > > > I do not consider this a failure. One of the benefits of using an > > open source project is that you can build it yourself. Given that > > users have this option, I think we should strive for releases without > > large, known regressions for stable features. We may not have known > > about this regression in 2.9.1, but we know about it now, before the 2.9.2 > > vote has closed. > > > > > If the time-based release doesn't work, I think we should have a > > discussion > > > in the private email list > > > > I request this discussion happen on the dev list to allow for user and > > contributor feedback. > > > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 11:08 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hi enrico, > > > > > > There are some other ongoing transaction fixes, we can't wait for all of > > > them to be completed > > > Please move them to 2.9.3 and don't block the 2.9.2 release. > > > > > > And https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097 also in the discussion > > > stage, > > > We should keep calm at this time, no need to hurry to merge a 100% clear > > > plan, > > > otherwise, we might introduce other regression in 2.9.2. > > > > > > Another point is non-transaction users are much larger than transaction > > > users for now, > > > there are many critical issue fixes in 2.9.2, I see many users can't wait > > > for our release, > > > they build from the branch-2.9 manually. > > > > > > We should follow the time-based release mode. If the release doesn't have > > > critical security issues, regressions. > > > we should not block the release, instead, we should prepare for the > > release > > > of 2.9.3 earlier. > > > > > > If the time-based release doesn't work, I think we should have a > > discussion > > > in the private email list > > > to find a good solution for Pulsar release, Let everyone keep consistent > > on > > > the rules for release. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Penghui > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 5:04 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Penghui, Gao, > > > > see my comments below please > > > > > > > > Il giorno mar 8 feb 2022 alle ore 09:16 Hang Chen > > > > <chenh...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > Verified the following context. > > > > > 1. Checked the checksum and licenses > > > > > 2. Build from the source code successfully > > > > > 3. Start standalone and run pulsar-perf with produce and consume > > > > > 4. Checked the Pulsar function and stateful functions > > > > > 5. Run Pulsar with KOP and publish and consume successfully with > > Kafka > > > > > 3.1.0 client > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Hang > > > > > > > > > > PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> 于2022年2月7日周一 18:01写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Checked the signature > > > > > > 2. Build from the source successfully > > > > > > 3. Start standalone > > > > > > 4. Publish and consume successfully > > > > > > 5. Cassandra connect works well > > > > > > 6. Checked state function > > > > > > > > > > > > And passed our internal integration tests. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Penghui > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 4:37 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not a regression in 2.9.2, we should not block the 2.9.2 > > > > release. > > > > > > > Instead, we can have the fix in 2.9.3. > > > > > > > > It depends on the timeline of 2.9.3...but we cannot "promise" we will > > > > follow up immediately with another release. > > > > > > > > My understanding is that now if you enable transactions then you > > > > cannot use regular Pulsar producers. > > > > And from 2.9 we said that Transactions are no more BETA > > > > > > > > This is very bad from my point of view. > > > > > > > > I agree that this is not a regression of 2.9.2 vs 2.9.1, but basically > > > > the Transactions feature is not usable > > > > > > > > There is already a PR open, with a good discussion. > > > > I believe that we should not hurry up in doing this release and we can > > > > fix the problem. > > > > > > > > We should fix the problem and then roll a new RC > > > > > > > > If my understanding is correct, then I am -1 in releasing this RC. > > > > If it is not correct, then I am happy to continue testing this RC. > > > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Penghui > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 8:42 PM Nicolò Boschi < > > boschi1...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Ran, thanks for driving the release. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I haven't tested the rc yet but I firmly believe we should > > include > > > > this > > > > > > >> pull [1] which fixes a regression introduced in Pulsar 2.9.0 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Il giorno mer 2 feb 2022 alle ore 08:34 Enrico Olivelli < > > > > > > >> eolive...@gmail.com> > > > > > > >> ha scritto: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > (sorry for the late reply, I am still testing, I had some > > other > > > > > > >> > priorities). > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > I hope that the community will test this RC and report back > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Enrico > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Il giorno mar 25 gen 2022 alle ore 15:07 Ran Gao < > > r...@apache.org> > > > > ha > > > > > > >> > scritto: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Sorry, the 2.9.2 release candidate-1 has a wrong sign > > > > certificate. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > This is the second release candidate for Apache Pulsar, > > version > > > > 2.9.2. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > *** Please download, test, and vote on this release. This > > vote > > > > will > > > > > > >> stay > > > > > > >> > > open > > > > > > >> > > for at least 72 hours *** > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Note that we are voting upon the source (tag), binaries are > > > > provided > > > > > > >> for > > > > > > >> > > convenience. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Source and binary files: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/pulsar-2.9.2-candidate-2/ > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > SHA-512 checksums: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 563f65582c5307b4ef1e0322958ed19d7c181fb8bb8d7b8cab06ab0a6adb5520f7d18b6f97960b93c3318815529a8b8721e00e9cc9484532a2e5ed3221450094 > > > > > > >> > > ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-bin.tar.gz > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > 60d1049611b938b0ddc769132124d43820728afc8a06813a5ec9efc095c5497c59d9bbcaaf7df5b0c0e97e051d66f59c1f8ee08885d05ca2c635773e0283770a > > > > > > >> > > ./apache-pulsar-2.9.2-src.tar.gz > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Maven staging repo: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1136 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > The tag to be voted upon: > > > > > > >> > > v2.9.2-candidate-2 > > (8a5d2253b888b3b865a2aedf635d6727777821c7) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.9.2-candidate-2 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Pulsar's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the > > > > release: > > > > > > >> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/pulsar/KEYS > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Please download the source package, and follow the README to > > > > build > > > > > > >> > > and run the Pulsar standalone service. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > >> Nicolò Boschi > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
