Good point. I have created a PR here: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/21795
We can always cherry-pick changes into the release branch, during the code freeze, with the appropriate precautions :) Matteo -- Matteo Merli <matteo.me...@gmail.com> On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 9:41 AM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > Do we target release 3.2.0 if this change gets accepted? > > The code freeze for 3.2.0 was about to start today and I blocked that. I > removed the already started branch-3.2 (which didn't contain any changes) > until the decision has been made. I hope this makes sense. If not, we can > always cut the branch again, nothing has been lost. > > re: https://lists.apache.org/thread/0pl9by5c53nkjp7vld3x89c8nqjrx9on > > -Lari > > On 2023/12/22 17:09:19 Matteo Merli wrote: > > I want to start a discussion regarding the removal of all the code > related > > to the Trino (PrestoDB) plugin from the Pulsar main repository. > > > > This topic was already discussed and approved long time ago in PIP-62 ( > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-62%3A-Move-connectors%2C-adapters-and-Pulsar-Presto-to-separate-repositories > > ) > > > > The main reasons for not having Presto plugin as part of the main > > distribution of Pulsar were (and still are valid): > > > > 1. We need to ship the entire Presto runtime which is ~400 MB. This > makes > > our tgz and Docker images huge > > 3. There is no strict need for this component to be in the same > > distribution / image: it could easily be provided in a different release > > tgz or Docker image > > > > Though I think that since then it became more clear that the current > state > > of this plugin has been stagnating over the years. > > > > 1. There are not many active users of Pulsar-SQL component (I'd be very > > happy to be contradicted here) > > 2. The plugin code has not been improved in a long time > > 3. There are several open security issues (actually, almost the totality > of > > current dependencies issues are today coming from Trino). > > > > My suggestion would be that, if there is any volunteer willing to pick > this > > plugin up and maintain it in a separate repository (within the Apache > > Pulsar project) and with a separate release schedule, we should go ahead > > and move it. > > If there are no volunteers, we should just remove it as it is. If later > on > > we want to revive it, we can always import the code from the last commit. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > -- > > Matteo Merli > > <mme...@apache.org> > > >
