Hi, Enrico > When we ran the VOTE and we provided the docker images, were they already broken ?
Actually, they are not broken unless we use the new features of Pulsar 3.0.0. I think we need something like verification test scripts, to verify the release candidate. For example, we use the image provided in the RC to run the integration tests. And we need to make sure that we have tested the newly added feature for the RC docker image. What do you think? BR, Zike Yang On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 3:14 PM Zike Yang <z...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi, Asaf > > > How do you suggest we prevent it from happening next time? > > I have pushed a PR to fix it: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20435 > This PR specifies the correct image name for `pulsar` image to build > pulsar-all. > > Note that, in the release of Pulsar 3.0, we build the docker image by > executing the following command instead of the `docker/build.sh`: > ``` > mvn install -DUBUNTU_MIRROR=http://azure.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ \ > -DskipTests \ > -Pdocker -Pdocker-push \ > -Ddocker.platforms=linux/amd64,linux/arm64 \ > -Ddocker.organization=snzkyang \ > -pl docker/pulsar,docker/pulsar-all > ``` > I think to take it a step further, we could fix these scripts(build.sh > and publish.sh) and use the shell scripts to build the image. > > I have verified the PR, and it works well. Please see more detail in > the PR description. > > Thanks, > Zike Yang > > On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 9:50 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I am really worried about the process. > > > > When we ran the VOTE and we provided the docker images, were they > > already broken ? > > > > In any case we cannot overwrite those images, they have been cached > > all over the world now. > > > > It is safer to cut a new 3.0.1 release and run a VOTE. > > > > Maybe we can remove the old images, forever > > > > Enrico > > > > Il giorno lun 29 mag 2023 alle ore 13:55 Asaf Mesika > > <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > > > Good catch! > > > > > > How do you suggest we prevent it from happening next time? > > > > > > On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 1:34 PM Zike Yang <z...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, all > > > > > > > > Recently, we found an issue with the `pulsar-all:3.0.0` image. The > > > > pulsar library included in `pulsar-all:3.0.0` is the version of > > > > 2.11.0: > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > docker run apachepulsar/pulsar-all:3.0.0 ls lib/ | grep pulsar-broker > > > > > > > > org.apache.pulsar-pulsar-broker-2.11.0.jar > > > > org.apache.pulsar-pulsar-broker-auth-sasl-2.11.0.jar > > > > org.apache.pulsar-pulsar-broker-common-2.11.0.jar > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > The root cause is that we use `apachepulsar/pulsar:latest` to build > > > > the `pulsar-all` image. But at the time of building Pulsar 3.0.0, > > > > `apachepulsar/pulsar:latest` was pointing to version 2.11.0. > > > > > > > > Therefore, the `pulsar-all:3.0.0` is actually a version 2.11.0 of > > > > Pulsar but with 3.0.0 connectors and offloaders. > > > > > > > > Please see more detail in this issue: > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/20420 > > > > > > > > I have rebuilt the `pulsar-all:3.0.0` image: > > > > > > > > https://hub.docker.com/layers/snzkyang/pulsar-all/3.0.0/images/sha256-833ea988bce8c704b179cc4c9c38fac8980e108b0bc67454e06c22927990b169?context=explore > > > > > > > > Please help and verify it. And check if there are any other problems > > > > with the image. > > > > > > > > I'm going to publish the image to the `apachepulsar` organization to > > > > replace the old one. But before we do that, do we need a Vote or other > > > > ways to reach a consensus? Is there any problem if we replace the old > > > > image? > > > > > > > > Besides, I will also fix the docker build script to avoid similar > > > > issues. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Zike Yang > > > >
