So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those commits except: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849 https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086
I understand that the optimization PRs are nice but if we start to accept them, why not accepting all the others and the code freeze becomes pointless. We can do a 3.0.1 shortly after to include all those enhancements. Do we have an agreement on this ? Christophe Le ven. 21 avr. 2023 à 11:36, Cong Zhao <zhaoc...@apache.org> a écrit : > > I strongly agree that these cherry-pick should be notified to the release > managers to avoid unintended consequences. > > PR https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086 is to solve a serious bug it > will lead to the pulsar-io block, so it is very necessary to cherry-pick into > 3.0. The rest of the PRs are optimized for large amounts of data, we also can > discuss whether they are necessary to cherry-pick into 3.0. > > Thanks, > Cong Zhao > > On 2023/04/21 07:26:43 Nicolò Boschi wrote: > > I believe that currently there's no clear process in place in order to > > decide whether a commit should be cherry-picked into the frozen branch. > > I know that we have a slack channel for the release coordination > > #pulsar-release-3_0, which is open to everyone. > > > > One solution would be to let the release managers cherry-pick the commits - > > they are the contributors more focused on the stability of the release > > branch and they might be able to discuss if it's worthwhile. > > Their opinion is not more important than others, but they need to know it > > anyway and they could spot incompatibilities and avoid unintended > > consequences. > > The mailing list is too "slow" for this kind of stuff. For more complex > > discussions, there's always the possibility to start a thread here. > > > > When a committer would like to cherry-pick a commit, instead of directly > > going for it without any discussion, they can ask in the release slack > > channel. > > The release managers will eventually cherry-pick it. > > If there's no consensus then the discussion is moved to the mailing list. I > > believe this wouldn't happen often, considering that currently we rely on > > the common sense of committers. > > > > What do you think? > > Nicolò Boschi > > > > > > Il giorno ven 21 apr 2023 alle ore 07:58 Cong Zhao <zhaoc...@apache.org> ha > > scritto: > > > > > Hi Zike, > > > > > > I'm sorry for cherry-picking the new delayed message PRs to branch-3.0. > > > > > > Would be very grateful if we could get to 3.0 since it is the new feature > > > of the delayed message and has no impact on other components. > > > > > > These PR is important to PIP-195, they will fix some problem with the new > > > delayed message and make this new feature work better. > > > > > > Need to cherry-pick PR: > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20086 > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20111 > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20126 > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20136 > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20117 > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20155 > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20156 > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20158 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Cong Zhao > > > > > > On 2023/04/21 05:36:26 Zike Yang wrote: > > > > Hi, all > > > > > > > > We found that there were a lot of commits that were cherry-picked to > > > > branch-3.0 without any discussion or notification to reach a > > > > consensus. Some PRs marked for the 3.1.0 milestone were also > > > > cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Here are the corresponding > > > > cherry-picked commits: > > > > * > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/3da39b2e1553cecbc6d6b85e8bc7844f611d5637 > > > > * > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e > > > > * > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e27abe9e128fb71b65ffe06417574c9a7f3facbd > > > > * > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb > > > > * > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/ff59240165c73a9c3a3dcca20702ab44b0b18d33 > > > > * > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/49480ea558e647169e8df01bfd2e871a5386e19e > > > > * > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/1d1a3ef864a65c995ceda4b7875ed934c2574298 > > > > * > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/0df741259505b9189147d72c6f013b2c18f0436c > > > > * > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/d05871213adc351d4c718c2a6fb0909b01d279ff > > > > > > > > According to our release policy[0] and the code freeze notification > > > > [1], all commits that need to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0 will > > > > require reaching the consensus before cherry-picking. > > > > Before cherry-picking the commit, we need to provide the context for > > > > why it needs to be cherry-picked into branch-3.0. Then mark it with > > > > the 3.0.0 milestone and raise the discussion to reach a consensus. > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion regarding the context for the above > > > > cherry-picked commits. Should we include them in Pulsar 3.0? > > > > If there is still no consensus for the above commits, we may need to > > > > revert them before the RC3. > > > > > > > > If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let > > > > us know. Thanks for your cooperation. > > > > > > > > [0] https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#release-cycles > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/43d28rtzsx7x3o4zd523jr5dmnczrn4h > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Zike Yang > > > > > > > > >
