> Our team has also tried to submit multiple enhancements and also PIP, but most of them are bogged down by reviewers who are very new to Pulsar, might not understand messaging correctly, or don’t find such enhancements useful for their usecases.
If your PRs or PIPs are not taken enough care of, please show concrete examples and ping committers in GitHub, Slack or the mail list. If you're suspicious of the committers that blocked your contributions, you can also make the discussion open in the mail list for more visibility. You mentioned PIP-337 [1] as an example. Unfortunately, I see Lari left many comments 3 weeks ago and there are no responses. The author also does not send any mail to the dev mail list. Regarding the fact that SN's proposals get more focus. It's true and reasonable because many committers work for SN. If one wants to promote his proposal, he could ping others in the company. For non-SN contributors, they can also reach Pulsar committers in GitHub, Slack as I mentioned before. Let's take PIP-338 [2] as another example. I can tell you that my team (from SN) has tracked this proposal internally from the mail [3] though the priority is not high so we don't have much time to review it for now. And I see there are many discussions from Lari and Girish, while the author (Meet0861) only left 1 comment in these discussions. Anyway, I don't think it should be "simply ignored without discussion". [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22016 [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22039 [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread/0ythswmt6d0q10f1knctc7py0gh5s4rd Thanks, Yunze On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 11:23 AM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 6, 2024, at 10:01 PM, Kalwit S <skalwit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Also, Pulsar may have > > numbers of non-SM PMC’s and committers, but if you look at the numbers over > > the last 2-3 years, you’ll see that 99% are from SM. > > If you are saying that this is the proportion of new committers and PMC > members in the last 2-3 years then 99% implies not a single non-SN committer > and/or PMC member added. This statement is categorically incorrect and > completely wrong. A number of individuals involved who are committers and PMC > members have changed jobs during the course of their involvement. A > surprising number have continued their involvement during their work > transitions. > > > I can even cite a few examples from recent times from different users > > (PIP-337, PIP-338, PIP-332, PIP-310, etc) to illustrate how some > > improvements are simply ignored without discussion, some are without any > > conclusion, and some are not given the opportunity to be implemented, which > > could have allowed other companies to implement a customized implementation > > for their need based on plugged-in approach. > > You were asked to provide an example. You need to pick one PIP, take the > time to research the conversations, gather references (links) to emails, and > explain how you think it is a problem. Be technical about just one. I > promised to help investigate, but I won’t help if you won’t do anything to > help us all understand. > > > > There are many examples > > (PIP-321) where it was developed by SN contributors, and while there is no > > consensus, they will still be a part of the system. Other PR examples show > > the same pattern, ignoring the needs of other companies, and merging the PR > > of SN contributors on an immediate basis. > > You have not shown any pattern, you have merely asserted it is there. Your > “unit test” is flawed. Do the work to factually prove your point. > > Thanks, > Dave > > >
