RE: [DISCUSS] The processing of residual scheam and the convergence of schema operation auth
Hi All, After discussing with Penghui and HangChen about the consistency of topic and schema deletion, our preliminary conclusion is to drop the `--deleteSchema` parameter in `bin/pulsar-admin topics delete`, which can ensure the schema is deleted when the topic is deleted, and the default value is `true` on the broker side to be compatible with the lower version client’s deletion request. This change plan to be merged in the next major version release. What about your thoughts on this? Thanks, Ruguo Yu On 2021/11/14 14:14:52 yuruguo wrote: > Dear all, > > Currently, topic and schema are managed separately, and there will be a > situation, that is, the topic has been deleted but its schema still exists. > Should we deal with these residual schemas? For this problem I created an > issue[1]. > > In addition, the operation auth of the schema should also converge. To a > certain extent, it is related to the operation auth of topic. For this > problem I created an issue[2]. > > Regarding the two problems of the schema, please give guidance or a better > solution > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12795 > > [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12419 > > > Thanks, > Ruguo Yu > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] New repository for website - pulsar-site
I’m going to work through https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/site2/README.md I’ll make sure that any changes related to the asf-site branch don’t have issue with that. We may want to be able to publish alternative web designs to a staging sites. > On Nov 17, 2021, at 3:02 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > I’ve updated my fork of apache/pulsar > > I’m not seeing how to run the workflow "CI - Pulsar Website build”. Any ideas? > > If not then I’m going to need to test locally and it will take some time to > ready it. > > >> On Nov 17, 2021, at 1:15 PM, Matteo Merli wrote: >> >> Yes, that should work. >> >> After that we can go ahead and remove `asf-site` from the main repo, >> although we need to make it "unprotected" to be able to do so. > > Yes once we have moved over to the new then we can ask Infra to take care of > the branch protection along with deleting it. > > When I create the new repository I will copy all of the asf-site branch which > will take care of transferring the parts of the site not actively being built. I have created the new repository and populated the asf-site branch: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/tree/asf-site It publishes to a staging url which you can see here: https://pulsar.staged.apache.org Once we are ready we alter: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/blob/asf-site/.asf.yaml Per: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/git+-+.asf.yaml+features > > Regards, > Dave > >> >> >> -- >> Matteo Merli >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:46 PM Dave Fisher wrote: >>> >>> If we change ORIGIN_REPO[1] to point to a new pulsar-site repos. >>> Then with the correct .asf.yaml file changes we can remove the asf-site >>> branch. >>> I see that the publish is run from this workflow [2] >>> Let me think about a PR to make the move. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dave >>> >>> [1] >>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/7a34cebca25e6e584e8b758e6bd58c1c4fe8a58e/site2/tools/publish-website.sh#L25 >>> [2] >>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/.github/workflows/ci-pulsar-website-build.yaml >>> >>> On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:31 PM, Matteo Merli wrote: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/site2/tools/publish-website.sh -- Matteo Merli On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:29 PM Dave Fisher wrote: > > Show me where the code is that commits to the asf-site branch. > >> On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:25 PM, Matteo Merli >> wrote: >> >> I agree with that. >> >> I understand that there are tradeoffs for each approach, though the >> original intention was to allow for doc changes to be committed in the >> same PR as the code change. That doesn't have to be the case always, >> especially for larger multi-PR changes, but it makes it easier to do >> quick corrections to the docs. >> >> I think the bigger problem here is to get rid of the generated site >> HTML stuff from the main pulsar repo. >> >> -- >> Matteo Merli >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:16 PM Enrico Olivelli >> wrote: >>> >>> Dave, >>> Having a new repo will make it harder for developers to contribute >>> documentation. >>> >>> Usually engineers do it like and do not have time to write docs. >>> >>> If we ask them to create two PRs only to add, for instance, a new >>> configuration option, then it would be somehow a pain. >>> >>> I am not saying that we shouldn't go this way, but it would be kind of a >>> pain for someone and we need to ear more voices. >>> >>> Enrico >>> >>> Il Mer 17 Nov 2021, 19:28 Sijie Guo ha scritto: >>> I think we should have a PIP for this. Because this impacts all the developers who are making documentation changes. - Sijie On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:46 AM Dave Fisher wrote: > Hi - > > There are two efforts happening in the community around website > refresh. > > (1) Docusaurus upgrades. > (2) New web design. > > There is an effort to eliminate all the extra commits in the asf-site > branch of the main repository. In that thread I proposed a new > repository > for the website. > > We can then discuss migration and development both on this mailing > list > and as PRs and Issues in that repository. > > Do we want to have a PIP process here or can we be less formal? I > think > that PRs. Issues, and simple commits can be sufficient. > > Unless there are objections I will create a new repository - > pulsar-site > on Friday in 72 hours. > ‘ > Regards, > Dave > > > >>> >
Re: [DISCUSS] New repository for website - pulsar-site
I’ve updated my fork of apache/pulsar I’m not seeing how to run the workflow "CI - Pulsar Website build”. Any ideas? If not then I’m going to need to test locally and it will take some time to ready it. > On Nov 17, 2021, at 1:15 PM, Matteo Merli wrote: > > Yes, that should work. > > After that we can go ahead and remove `asf-site` from the main repo, > although we need to make it "unprotected" to be able to do so. Yes once we have moved over to the new then we can ask Infra to take care of the branch protection along with deleting it. When I create the new repository I will copy all of the asf-site branch which will take care of transferring the parts of the site not actively being built. Regards, Dave > > > -- > Matteo Merli > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:46 PM Dave Fisher wrote: >> >> If we change ORIGIN_REPO[1] to point to a new pulsar-site repos. >> Then with the correct .asf.yaml file changes we can remove the asf-site >> branch. >> I see that the publish is run from this workflow [2] >> Let me think about a PR to make the move. >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/7a34cebca25e6e584e8b758e6bd58c1c4fe8a58e/site2/tools/publish-website.sh#L25 >> [2] >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/.github/workflows/ci-pulsar-website-build.yaml >> >> >>> On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:31 PM, Matteo Merli wrote: >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/site2/tools/publish-website.sh >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matteo Merli >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:29 PM Dave Fisher wrote: Show me where the code is that commits to the asf-site branch. > On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:25 PM, Matteo Merli wrote: > > I agree with that. > > I understand that there are tradeoffs for each approach, though the > original intention was to allow for doc changes to be committed in the > same PR as the code change. That doesn't have to be the case always, > especially for larger multi-PR changes, but it makes it easier to do > quick corrections to the docs. > > I think the bigger problem here is to get rid of the generated site > HTML stuff from the main pulsar repo. > > -- > Matteo Merli > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:16 PM Enrico Olivelli > wrote: >> >> Dave, >> Having a new repo will make it harder for developers to contribute >> documentation. >> >> Usually engineers do it like and do not have time to write docs. >> >> If we ask them to create two PRs only to add, for instance, a new >> configuration option, then it would be somehow a pain. >> >> I am not saying that we shouldn't go this way, but it would be kind of a >> pain for someone and we need to ear more voices. >> >> Enrico >> >> Il Mer 17 Nov 2021, 19:28 Sijie Guo ha scritto: >> >>> I think we should have a PIP for this. Because this impacts all the >>> developers who are making documentation changes. >>> >>> - Sijie >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:46 AM Dave Fisher wrote: >>> Hi - There are two efforts happening in the community around website refresh. (1) Docusaurus upgrades. (2) New web design. There is an effort to eliminate all the extra commits in the asf-site branch of the main repository. In that thread I proposed a new repository for the website. We can then discuss migration and development both on this mailing list and as PRs and Issues in that repository. Do we want to have a PIP process here or can we be less formal? I think that PRs. Issues, and simple commits can be sufficient. Unless there are objections I will create a new repository - pulsar-site on Friday in 72 hours. ‘ Regards, Dave >>> >>
Re: [DISCUSS] New repository for website - pulsar-site
Yes, that should work. After that we can go ahead and remove `asf-site` from the main repo, although we need to make it "unprotected" to be able to do so. -- Matteo Merli On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:46 PM Dave Fisher wrote: > > If we change ORIGIN_REPO[1] to point to a new pulsar-site repos. > Then with the correct .asf.yaml file changes we can remove the asf-site > branch. > I see that the publish is run from this workflow [2] > Let me think about a PR to make the move. > > Regards, > Dave > > [1] > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/7a34cebca25e6e584e8b758e6bd58c1c4fe8a58e/site2/tools/publish-website.sh#L25 > [2] > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/.github/workflows/ci-pulsar-website-build.yaml > > > > On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:31 PM, Matteo Merli wrote: > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/site2/tools/publish-website.sh > > > > > > -- > > Matteo Merli > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:29 PM Dave Fisher wrote: > >> > >> Show me where the code is that commits to the asf-site branch. > >> > >>> On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:25 PM, Matteo Merli wrote: > >>> > >>> I agree with that. > >>> > >>> I understand that there are tradeoffs for each approach, though the > >>> original intention was to allow for doc changes to be committed in the > >>> same PR as the code change. That doesn't have to be the case always, > >>> especially for larger multi-PR changes, but it makes it easier to do > >>> quick corrections to the docs. > >>> > >>> I think the bigger problem here is to get rid of the generated site > >>> HTML stuff from the main pulsar repo. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Matteo Merli > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:16 PM Enrico Olivelli > >>> wrote: > > Dave, > Having a new repo will make it harder for developers to contribute > documentation. > > Usually engineers do it like and do not have time to write docs. > > If we ask them to create two PRs only to add, for instance, a new > configuration option, then it would be somehow a pain. > > I am not saying that we shouldn't go this way, but it would be kind of a > pain for someone and we need to ear more voices. > > Enrico > > Il Mer 17 Nov 2021, 19:28 Sijie Guo ha scritto: > > > I think we should have a PIP for this. Because this impacts all the > > developers who are making documentation changes. > > > > - Sijie > > > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:46 AM Dave Fisher wrote: > > > >> Hi - > >> > >> There are two efforts happening in the community around website > >> refresh. > >> > >> (1) Docusaurus upgrades. > >> (2) New web design. > >> > >> There is an effort to eliminate all the extra commits in the asf-site > >> branch of the main repository. In that thread I proposed a new > >> repository > >> for the website. > >> > >> We can then discuss migration and development both on this mailing list > >> and as PRs and Issues in that repository. > >> > >> Do we want to have a PIP process here or can we be less formal? I think > >> that PRs. Issues, and simple commits can be sufficient. > >> > >> Unless there are objections I will create a new repository - > >> pulsar-site > >> on Friday in 72 hours. > >> ‘ > >> Regards, > >> Dave > >> > >> > > > >> >
Re: [DISCUSS] New repository for website - pulsar-site
If we change ORIGIN_REPO[1] to point to a new pulsar-site repos. Then with the correct .asf.yaml file changes we can remove the asf-site branch. I see that the publish is run from this workflow [2] Let me think about a PR to make the move. Regards, Dave [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/7a34cebca25e6e584e8b758e6bd58c1c4fe8a58e/site2/tools/publish-website.sh#L25 [2] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/.github/workflows/ci-pulsar-website-build.yaml > On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:31 PM, Matteo Merli wrote: > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/site2/tools/publish-website.sh > > > -- > Matteo Merli > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:29 PM Dave Fisher wrote: >> >> Show me where the code is that commits to the asf-site branch. >> >>> On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:25 PM, Matteo Merli wrote: >>> >>> I agree with that. >>> >>> I understand that there are tradeoffs for each approach, though the >>> original intention was to allow for doc changes to be committed in the >>> same PR as the code change. That doesn't have to be the case always, >>> especially for larger multi-PR changes, but it makes it easier to do >>> quick corrections to the docs. >>> >>> I think the bigger problem here is to get rid of the generated site >>> HTML stuff from the main pulsar repo. >>> >>> -- >>> Matteo Merli >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:16 PM Enrico Olivelli >>> wrote: Dave, Having a new repo will make it harder for developers to contribute documentation. Usually engineers do it like and do not have time to write docs. If we ask them to create two PRs only to add, for instance, a new configuration option, then it would be somehow a pain. I am not saying that we shouldn't go this way, but it would be kind of a pain for someone and we need to ear more voices. Enrico Il Mer 17 Nov 2021, 19:28 Sijie Guo ha scritto: > I think we should have a PIP for this. Because this impacts all the > developers who are making documentation changes. > > - Sijie > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:46 AM Dave Fisher wrote: > >> Hi - >> >> There are two efforts happening in the community around website refresh. >> >> (1) Docusaurus upgrades. >> (2) New web design. >> >> There is an effort to eliminate all the extra commits in the asf-site >> branch of the main repository. In that thread I proposed a new repository >> for the website. >> >> We can then discuss migration and development both on this mailing list >> and as PRs and Issues in that repository. >> >> Do we want to have a PIP process here or can we be less formal? I think >> that PRs. Issues, and simple commits can be sufficient. >> >> Unless there are objections I will create a new repository - pulsar-site >> on Friday in 72 hours. >> ‘ >> Regards, >> Dave >> >> > >>
Re: [DISCUSS] New repository for website - pulsar-site
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/site2/tools/publish-website.sh -- Matteo Merli On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:29 PM Dave Fisher wrote: > > Show me where the code is that commits to the asf-site branch. > > > On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:25 PM, Matteo Merli wrote: > > > > I agree with that. > > > > I understand that there are tradeoffs for each approach, though the > > original intention was to allow for doc changes to be committed in the > > same PR as the code change. That doesn't have to be the case always, > > especially for larger multi-PR changes, but it makes it easier to do > > quick corrections to the docs. > > > > I think the bigger problem here is to get rid of the generated site > > HTML stuff from the main pulsar repo. > > > > -- > > Matteo Merli > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:16 PM Enrico Olivelli > > wrote: > >> > >> Dave, > >> Having a new repo will make it harder for developers to contribute > >> documentation. > >> > >> Usually engineers do it like and do not have time to write docs. > >> > >> If we ask them to create two PRs only to add, for instance, a new > >> configuration option, then it would be somehow a pain. > >> > >> I am not saying that we shouldn't go this way, but it would be kind of a > >> pain for someone and we need to ear more voices. > >> > >> Enrico > >> > >> Il Mer 17 Nov 2021, 19:28 Sijie Guo ha scritto: > >> > >>> I think we should have a PIP for this. Because this impacts all the > >>> developers who are making documentation changes. > >>> > >>> - Sijie > >>> > >>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:46 AM Dave Fisher wrote: > >>> > Hi - > > There are two efforts happening in the community around website refresh. > > (1) Docusaurus upgrades. > (2) New web design. > > There is an effort to eliminate all the extra commits in the asf-site > branch of the main repository. In that thread I proposed a new repository > for the website. > > We can then discuss migration and development both on this mailing list > and as PRs and Issues in that repository. > > Do we want to have a PIP process here or can we be less formal? I think > that PRs. Issues, and simple commits can be sufficient. > > Unless there are objections I will create a new repository - pulsar-site > on Friday in 72 hours. > ‘ > Regards, > Dave > > > >>> >
Re: [DISCUSS] New repository for website - pulsar-site
Show me where the code is that commits to the asf-site branch. > On Nov 17, 2021, at 12:25 PM, Matteo Merli wrote: > > I agree with that. > > I understand that there are tradeoffs for each approach, though the > original intention was to allow for doc changes to be committed in the > same PR as the code change. That doesn't have to be the case always, > especially for larger multi-PR changes, but it makes it easier to do > quick corrections to the docs. > > I think the bigger problem here is to get rid of the generated site > HTML stuff from the main pulsar repo. > > -- > Matteo Merli > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:16 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: >> >> Dave, >> Having a new repo will make it harder for developers to contribute >> documentation. >> >> Usually engineers do it like and do not have time to write docs. >> >> If we ask them to create two PRs only to add, for instance, a new >> configuration option, then it would be somehow a pain. >> >> I am not saying that we shouldn't go this way, but it would be kind of a >> pain for someone and we need to ear more voices. >> >> Enrico >> >> Il Mer 17 Nov 2021, 19:28 Sijie Guo ha scritto: >> >>> I think we should have a PIP for this. Because this impacts all the >>> developers who are making documentation changes. >>> >>> - Sijie >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:46 AM Dave Fisher wrote: >>> Hi - There are two efforts happening in the community around website refresh. (1) Docusaurus upgrades. (2) New web design. There is an effort to eliminate all the extra commits in the asf-site branch of the main repository. In that thread I proposed a new repository for the website. We can then discuss migration and development both on this mailing list and as PRs and Issues in that repository. Do we want to have a PIP process here or can we be less formal? I think that PRs. Issues, and simple commits can be sufficient. Unless there are objections I will create a new repository - pulsar-site on Friday in 72 hours. ‘ Regards, Dave >>>
Re: [DISCUSS] New repository for website - pulsar-site
I agree with that. I understand that there are tradeoffs for each approach, though the original intention was to allow for doc changes to be committed in the same PR as the code change. That doesn't have to be the case always, especially for larger multi-PR changes, but it makes it easier to do quick corrections to the docs. I think the bigger problem here is to get rid of the generated site HTML stuff from the main pulsar repo. -- Matteo Merli On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 12:16 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > > Dave, > Having a new repo will make it harder for developers to contribute > documentation. > > Usually engineers do it like and do not have time to write docs. > > If we ask them to create two PRs only to add, for instance, a new > configuration option, then it would be somehow a pain. > > I am not saying that we shouldn't go this way, but it would be kind of a > pain for someone and we need to ear more voices. > > Enrico > > Il Mer 17 Nov 2021, 19:28 Sijie Guo ha scritto: > > > I think we should have a PIP for this. Because this impacts all the > > developers who are making documentation changes. > > > > - Sijie > > > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:46 AM Dave Fisher wrote: > > > > > Hi - > > > > > > There are two efforts happening in the community around website refresh. > > > > > > (1) Docusaurus upgrades. > > > (2) New web design. > > > > > > There is an effort to eliminate all the extra commits in the asf-site > > > branch of the main repository. In that thread I proposed a new repository > > > for the website. > > > > > > We can then discuss migration and development both on this mailing list > > > and as PRs and Issues in that repository. > > > > > > Do we want to have a PIP process here or can we be less formal? I think > > > that PRs. Issues, and simple commits can be sufficient. > > > > > > Unless there are objections I will create a new repository - pulsar-site > > > on Friday in 72 hours. > > > ‘ > > > Regards, > > > Dave > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Add Pulsar io Pulsar connector
@sijie the case here might be tricky. They may want to move data across pulsar clusters operated by different org or teams. Remember we previously added the ability to send messages to external pulsar clusters for pulsar function but got reverted. I think this is the case they are trying to tackle. On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 10:29 AM Sijie Guo wrote: > I don't think you need a separate connector. > > An identity function should be able to do the job for you. > > - Sijie > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 3:34 PM Neng Lu wrote: > > > Just did a quick search, it's interesting we don't have a pulsar > connector > > to move data among pulsar clusters. > > I guess people usually write their own pulsar client to move data around. > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 3:11 PM ZhangJian He wrote: > > > > > Yes, move data across different pulsar clusters which belongs to > > different > > > company or organization > > > > > > Thanks > > > ZhangJian He > > > > > > Neng Lu 于2021年11月16日周二 上午2:50写道： > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > What's your new connector used for in the customer use cases? > > > > A `pulsar-io-kafak-connector` is used for moving data between kafka > and > > > > pulsar. > > > > But in your case, a `pulsar-io-pulsar-connector`, do you mean you > want > > to > > > > move data across different pulsar clusters? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 6:51 AM ZhangJian He > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear all > > > > > > > > > > My team are suggesting some of our customers use pulsar instead of > > > kafka > > > > > for their needs. > > > > > Before, my team used a pulsar-io-kafka-connector, now my team wants > > to > > > > use > > > > > a pulsar-io-to-pulsar-connector server for these customers. > > > > > > > > > > And I notice now we don't have a pulsar-io-pulsar-connector. > > > > > > > > > > Should I develop a connector? > > > > > And should the connector be maintained in the pulsar main repo ? > > > > > > > > > > IMO, if we dicided to develop a pulsar-io-connector, it's more > > > reasonable > > > > > to maintain it in the pulsar main repo. (At least, the > > > > > pulsar-io-kafka-connector is in main repo) > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to your opinions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > ZhangJian He > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] New repository for website - pulsar-site
Dave, Having a new repo will make it harder for developers to contribute documentation. Usually engineers do it like and do not have time to write docs. If we ask them to create two PRs only to add, for instance, a new configuration option, then it would be somehow a pain. I am not saying that we shouldn't go this way, but it would be kind of a pain for someone and we need to ear more voices. Enrico Il Mer 17 Nov 2021, 19:28 Sijie Guo ha scritto: > I think we should have a PIP for this. Because this impacts all the > developers who are making documentation changes. > > - Sijie > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:46 AM Dave Fisher wrote: > > > Hi - > > > > There are two efforts happening in the community around website refresh. > > > > (1) Docusaurus upgrades. > > (2) New web design. > > > > There is an effort to eliminate all the extra commits in the asf-site > > branch of the main repository. In that thread I proposed a new repository > > for the website. > > > > We can then discuss migration and development both on this mailing list > > and as PRs and Issues in that repository. > > > > Do we want to have a PIP process here or can we be less formal? I think > > that PRs. Issues, and simple commits can be sufficient. > > > > Unless there are objections I will create a new repository - pulsar-site > > on Friday in 72 hours. > > ‘ > > Regards, > > Dave > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Add Pulsar io Pulsar connector
I don't think you need a separate connector. An identity function should be able to do the job for you. - Sijie On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 3:34 PM Neng Lu wrote: > Just did a quick search, it's interesting we don't have a pulsar connector > to move data among pulsar clusters. > I guess people usually write their own pulsar client to move data around. > > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 3:11 PM ZhangJian He wrote: > > > Yes, move data across different pulsar clusters which belongs to > different > > company or organization > > > > Thanks > > ZhangJian He > > > > Neng Lu 于2021年11月16日周二 上午2:50写道： > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > What's your new connector used for in the customer use cases? > > > A `pulsar-io-kafak-connector` is used for moving data between kafka and > > > pulsar. > > > But in your case, a `pulsar-io-pulsar-connector`, do you mean you want > to > > > move data across different pulsar clusters? > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 6:51 AM ZhangJian He > wrote: > > > > > > > Dear all > > > > > > > > My team are suggesting some of our customers use pulsar instead of > > kafka > > > > for their needs. > > > > Before, my team used a pulsar-io-kafka-connector, now my team wants > to > > > use > > > > a pulsar-io-to-pulsar-connector server for these customers. > > > > > > > > And I notice now we don't have a pulsar-io-pulsar-connector. > > > > > > > > Should I develop a connector? > > > > And should the connector be maintained in the pulsar main repo ? > > > > > > > > IMO, if we dicided to develop a pulsar-io-connector, it's more > > reasonable > > > > to maintain it in the pulsar main repo. (At least, the > > > > pulsar-io-kafka-connector is in main repo) > > > > > > > > Looking forward to your opinions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > ZhangJian He > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] New repository for website - pulsar-site
I think we should have a PIP for this. Because this impacts all the developers who are making documentation changes. - Sijie On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 8:46 AM Dave Fisher wrote: > Hi - > > There are two efforts happening in the community around website refresh. > > (1) Docusaurus upgrades. > (2) New web design. > > There is an effort to eliminate all the extra commits in the asf-site > branch of the main repository. In that thread I proposed a new repository > for the website. > > We can then discuss migration and development both on this mailing list > and as PRs and Issues in that repository. > > Do we want to have a PIP process here or can we be less formal? I think > that PRs. Issues, and simple commits can be sufficient. > > Unless there are objections I will create a new repository - pulsar-site > on Friday in 72 hours. > ‘ > Regards, > Dave > >
Re: Dropping Presto SQL in 2.9.0 - status ?
Just curious to learn is there any progress on moving all the connectors into separate repos? Maybe I can help if the decision is finalized. On 2021/11/17 06:18:52 Lari Hotari wrote: > Dear Pulsar community members, > > PIP-62[1], "PIP 62: Move connectors, adapters and Pulsar Presto to separate > repositories" was created in April 2020. The repositories for > pulsar-connectors, pulsar-adapters and pulsar-sql were created about a year > ago [2]. > > What is the current roadmap for completing PIP-62 and moving > pulsar-connectors and pulsar-sql out of apache/pulsar repository? > > BR, > > Lari > > [1] > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-62%3A-Move-connectors%2C-adapters-and-Pulsar-Presto-to-separate-repositories > [2] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r9e6ec742e2896da1f0ce7d4adc7cb84fc6db6dbf797732ccdd50fb86%40%3Cdev.pulsar.apache.org%3E > > Other email threads: > * [Discuss] Don't include presto/trino in the normal Pulsar distribution - > https://lists.apache.org/thread/jn96tct54mn0tvdot62vdslrvs38fm6d > * Updates on Presto connector for PIP-62 - > https://lists.apache.org/thread/f9n6sc2mrboq5sxhjbr7gvdl8vqp9fpk > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 3:59 PM Nicolò Boschi wrote: > > > Resurrecting this thread. > > > > 2.9 is almost released and it hasn't been merged yet > > > > Extending the discussion to other connectors, it looks like there has been > > no progress on PIP-62. > > My concern is that a lot of Pulsar IO connectors dependencies we are > > running are obsolete with several security reports > > > > I see there are interesting comments in the issue ( > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/10219) and Sijie exported the > > pulsar-io dir to https://github.com/apache/pulsar-connectors but it's > > outdated > > > > From my point of view, we have to: > > - reimport all the connectors source codes with newest ones (including > > integration tests) > > - add periodic CI jobs for connectors to run against master, 2.9-latest, > > 2.8-latest, 2.7-latest to verify breaking changes > > - define a release cycle/management for connectors (we should improve the > > PIP doc). IMO it's not clear if each connector will have its own release > > versions and how we'll handle it (git tags, artifacts deployment..) > > - update pulsar release script in order to get the connectors artifacts > > (retrieving the .nar or building it from source?) > > - update docs > > - remove pulsar-io dir from Pulsar repo > > > > It's the perfect timing to schedule this work for 2.10 > > > > What is missing? How's the situation? Is there a roadblock I haven't seen? > > I think it's better to take another discussion for Presto since it will > > come to another end > > > > > > Il giorno sab 14 ago 2021 alle ore 15:21 Enrico Olivelli < > > eolive...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > > Sijie > > > > > > Il Ven 13 Ago 2021, 22:00 Sijie Guo ha scritto: > > > > > > > You can follow the progress at > > > https://github.com/trinodb/trino/pull/8020. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the pointer > > > > > > > > > > > The original code doesn't conform to TrinoDB's standard. Marvin is > > > > actively following up on that. > > > > > > > > Our goal is still to get this completed as part of the 2.9 release. > > > > > > > > > > Wonderful > > > > > > Thanks > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > - Sijie > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 2:04 AM Enrico Olivelli > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > How is the Presto work going ? > > > > > IIRC the plan was to remove it from the Pulsar code base and let it > > be > > > > > hosted at Trino. > > > > > > > > > > If this is not going to happen within the 2.9.0 release timeline > > > > > (September?) I would prefer to upgrade to "Trino". > > > > > Probably we will have a downside problem that recent versions of > > > > > Presto/Trino do not work on JDK8 but only on JDK11. > > > > > > > > > > I believe that in that case we could open a separate thread to say > > that > > > > > Pulsar SQL in 2.9.0 will work only on JDK11. > > > > > In Pulsar 2.8.0 we added official compatibility with JDK11 (and it is > > > the > > > > > preferred version, as it is the version used in the Docker images), > > so > > > > > requiring JDK11 for Pulsar SQL 2.9.0 does not sound bad to me. > > > > > > > > > > My primary concern is that the version of Presto that we are running > > is > > > > > obsolete and there are several security reports against it or its > > third > > > > > party dependencies. > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Nicolò Boschi > > >
Re: Dropping Presto SQL in 2.9.0 - status ?
Thanks for the update Marvin, Great work on the Trino PR! It's been a lot of work to get it to match the Trino code conventions. Is there a lot of work remaining? -Lari On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:40 PM Zhengxin Cai wrote: > Hi there, > I think the pr is still open, https://github.com/trinodb/trino/pull/8020, > will try to push it. > But even after the pr is merged, I actually still think we might still want > to keep a copy of the connector in Pulsar repo and push changes to Trino > repo periodically, as this will allow much faster bug fix and feature > iteration. > Best, > Marvin, > > Lari Hotari 于2021年11月17日周三 下午2:19写道： > > > Dear Pulsar community members, > > > > PIP-62[1], "PIP 62: Move connectors, adapters and Pulsar Presto to > separate > > repositories" was created in April 2020. The repositories for > > pulsar-connectors, pulsar-adapters and pulsar-sql were created about a > year > > ago [2]. > > > > What is the current roadmap for completing PIP-62 and moving > > pulsar-connectors and pulsar-sql out of apache/pulsar repository? > > > > BR, > > > > Lari > > > > [1] > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-62%3A-Move-connectors%2C-adapters-and-Pulsar-Presto-to-separate-repositories > > [2] > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r9e6ec742e2896da1f0ce7d4adc7cb84fc6db6dbf797732ccdd50fb86%40%3Cdev.pulsar.apache.org%3E > > > > Other email threads: > > * [Discuss] Don't include presto/trino in the normal Pulsar distribution > - > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/jn96tct54mn0tvdot62vdslrvs38fm6d > > * Updates on Presto connector for PIP-62 - > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/f9n6sc2mrboq5sxhjbr7gvdl8vqp9fpk > > > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 3:59 PM Nicolò Boschi > wrote: > > > > > Resurrecting this thread. > > > > > > 2.9 is almost released and it hasn't been merged yet > > > > > > Extending the discussion to other connectors, it looks like there has > > been > > > no progress on PIP-62. > > > My concern is that a lot of Pulsar IO connectors dependencies we are > > > running are obsolete with several security reports > > > > > > I see there are interesting comments in the issue ( > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/10219) and Sijie exported the > > > pulsar-io dir to https://github.com/apache/pulsar-connectors but it's > > > outdated > > > > > > From my point of view, we have to: > > > - reimport all the connectors source codes with newest ones (including > > > integration tests) > > > - add periodic CI jobs for connectors to run against master, > 2.9-latest, > > > 2.8-latest, 2.7-latest to verify breaking changes > > > - define a release cycle/management for connectors (we should improve > the > > > PIP doc). IMO it's not clear if each connector will have its own > release > > > versions and how we'll handle it (git tags, artifacts deployment..) > > > - update pulsar release script in order to get the connectors artifacts > > > (retrieving the .nar or building it from source?) > > > - update docs > > > - remove pulsar-io dir from Pulsar repo > > > > > > It's the perfect timing to schedule this work for 2.10 > > > > > > What is missing? How's the situation? Is there a roadblock I haven't > > seen? > > > I think it's better to take another discussion for Presto since it will > > > come to another end > > > > > > > > > Il giorno sab 14 ago 2021 alle ore 15:21 Enrico Olivelli < > > > eolive...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > > > > Sijie > > > > > > > > Il Ven 13 Ago 2021, 22:00 Sijie Guo ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > You can follow the progress at > > > > https://github.com/trinodb/trino/pull/8020. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the pointer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The original code doesn't conform to TrinoDB's standard. Marvin is > > > > > actively following up on that. > > > > > > > > > > Our goal is still to get this completed as part of the 2.9 release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wonderful > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Sijie > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 2:04 AM Enrico Olivelli < > eolive...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > How is the Presto work going ? > > > > > > IIRC the plan was to remove it from the Pulsar code base and let > it > > > be > > > > > > hosted at Trino. > > > > > > > > > > > > If this is not going to happen within the 2.9.0 release timeline > > > > > > (September?) I would prefer to upgrade to "Trino". > > > > > > Probably we will have a downside problem that recent versions of > > > > > > Presto/Trino do not work on JDK8 but only on JDK11. > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that in that case we could open a separate thread to > say > > > that > > > > > > Pulsar SQL in 2.9.0 will work only on JDK11. > > > > > > In Pulsar 2.8.0 we added official compatibility with JDK11 (and > it > > is > > > > the > > > > > > preferred version, as it is the version used in the Docker > images), > > > so > > > > > > requiring JDK11 for Pulsar SQL 2.9.0 does not sound
Re: [VOTE] Apache Pulsar 2.9.0 candidate 4
I have pushed in my personal dockerhub the docker images for this RC: eolivelli/pulsar-all:2.9.0rc4 eolivelli/pulsar:2.9.0rc4 Enrico Il giorno mer 17 nov 2021 alle ore 14:04 Enrico Olivelli < eolive...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > This is the fourth release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.9.0. > > It fixes the following issues: > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/milestone/30?closed=1 > > *** 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-2.9.0-candidate-4/ > > SHA-512 checksums: > > 659afa98e2475fc95f3126aab47d365e3e43a9d419c9cbe20c99520029f0b28aec2f471da5ccf47b92017a4c7943fc113a96232b075eb675e2b9df3601b2a7ad > apache-pulsar-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT-bin.tar.gz > ed93aa1b57411c5d153bcd1433db6679ddb9b4d23896b39c1a1ad8edc70aaa7e95842a5770d6d55b466ab90500e17f50549673601556e767f7c12135ae360e85 > apache-pulsar-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT-src.tar.gz > > Maven staging repo: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1104/ > > The tag to be voted upon: > v2.9.0-candidate-4 (bdd57b21a66b81aab72c4ec39d516ffd2a769c35) > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.9.0-candidate-4 > > 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. > > Enrico Olivelli > >
Re: Dropping Presto SQL in 2.9.0 - status ?
Marvin, Il giorno mer 17 nov 2021 alle ore 14:39 Zhengxin Cai ha scritto: > Hi there, > I think the pr is still open, https://github.com/trinodb/trino/pull/8020, > will try to push it. > But even after the pr is merged, I actually still think we might still want > to keep a copy of the connector in Pulsar repo and push changes to Trino > repo periodically, as this will allow much faster bug fix and feature > iteration. > That's not the plan. We want to get rid of Presto/Trino from the Pulsar repo. if you want to keep it then we must upgrade to Trino. Currently we have a very outdated version of Presto, that brings in a few obsolete dependencies tagged with CVEs. Please note that more recent versions of Presto/Trino require JDK11, so a switch to Trino may be feasible for Pulsar 2.10 if we drop support for JDK8 Enrico > Best, > Marvin, > > Lari Hotari 于2021年11月17日周三 下午2:19写道： > > > Dear Pulsar community members, > > > > PIP-62[1], "PIP 62: Move connectors, adapters and Pulsar Presto to > separate > > repositories" was created in April 2020. The repositories for > > pulsar-connectors, pulsar-adapters and pulsar-sql were created about a > year > > ago [2]. > > > > What is the current roadmap for completing PIP-62 and moving > > pulsar-connectors and pulsar-sql out of apache/pulsar repository? > > > > BR, > > > > Lari > > > > [1] > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-62%3A-Move-connectors%2C-adapters-and-Pulsar-Presto-to-separate-repositories > > [2] > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r9e6ec742e2896da1f0ce7d4adc7cb84fc6db6dbf797732ccdd50fb86%40%3Cdev.pulsar.apache.org%3E > > > > Other email threads: > > * [Discuss] Don't include presto/trino in the normal Pulsar distribution > - > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/jn96tct54mn0tvdot62vdslrvs38fm6d > > * Updates on Presto connector for PIP-62 - > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/f9n6sc2mrboq5sxhjbr7gvdl8vqp9fpk > > > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 3:59 PM Nicolò Boschi > wrote: > > > > > Resurrecting this thread. > > > > > > 2.9 is almost released and it hasn't been merged yet > > > > > > Extending the discussion to other connectors, it looks like there has > > been > > > no progress on PIP-62. > > > My concern is that a lot of Pulsar IO connectors dependencies we are > > > running are obsolete with several security reports > > > > > > I see there are interesting comments in the issue ( > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/10219) and Sijie exported the > > > pulsar-io dir to https://github.com/apache/pulsar-connectors but it's > > > outdated > > > > > > From my point of view, we have to: > > > - reimport all the connectors source codes with newest ones (including > > > integration tests) > > > - add periodic CI jobs for connectors to run against master, > 2.9-latest, > > > 2.8-latest, 2.7-latest to verify breaking changes > > > - define a release cycle/management for connectors (we should improve > the > > > PIP doc). IMO it's not clear if each connector will have its own > release > > > versions and how we'll handle it (git tags, artifacts deployment..) > > > - update pulsar release script in order to get the connectors artifacts > > > (retrieving the .nar or building it from source?) > > > - update docs > > > - remove pulsar-io dir from Pulsar repo > > > > > > It's the perfect timing to schedule this work for 2.10 > > > > > > What is missing? How's the situation? Is there a roadblock I haven't > > seen? > > > I think it's better to take another discussion for Presto since it will > > > come to another end > > > > > > > > > Il giorno sab 14 ago 2021 alle ore 15:21 Enrico Olivelli < > > > eolive...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > > > > Sijie > > > > > > > > Il Ven 13 Ago 2021, 22:00 Sijie Guo ha scritto: > > > > > > > > > You can follow the progress at > > > > https://github.com/trinodb/trino/pull/8020. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the pointer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The original code doesn't conform to TrinoDB's standard. Marvin is > > > > > actively following up on that. > > > > > > > > > > Our goal is still to get this completed as part of the 2.9 release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wonderful > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Sijie > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 2:04 AM Enrico Olivelli < > eolive...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > How is the Presto work going ? > > > > > > IIRC the plan was to remove it from the Pulsar code base and let > it > > > be > > > > > > hosted at Trino. > > > > > > > > > > > > If this is not going to happen within the 2.9.0 release timeline > > > > > > (September?) I would prefer to upgrade to "Trino". > > > > > > Probably we will have a downside problem that recent versions of > > > > > > Presto/Trino do not work on JDK8 but only on JDK11. > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that in that case we could open a separate thread to > say > > > that > > > > > > Pulsar SQL in 2.9.0 will work only on
Re: Dropping Presto SQL in 2.9.0 - status ?
Hi there, I think the pr is still open, https://github.com/trinodb/trino/pull/8020, will try to push it. But even after the pr is merged, I actually still think we might still want to keep a copy of the connector in Pulsar repo and push changes to Trino repo periodically, as this will allow much faster bug fix and feature iteration. Best, Marvin, Lari Hotari 于2021年11月17日周三 下午2:19写道： > Dear Pulsar community members, > > PIP-62[1], "PIP 62: Move connectors, adapters and Pulsar Presto to separate > repositories" was created in April 2020. The repositories for > pulsar-connectors, pulsar-adapters and pulsar-sql were created about a year > ago [2]. > > What is the current roadmap for completing PIP-62 and moving > pulsar-connectors and pulsar-sql out of apache/pulsar repository? > > BR, > > Lari > > [1] > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-62%3A-Move-connectors%2C-adapters-and-Pulsar-Presto-to-separate-repositories > [2] > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r9e6ec742e2896da1f0ce7d4adc7cb84fc6db6dbf797732ccdd50fb86%40%3Cdev.pulsar.apache.org%3E > > Other email threads: > * [Discuss] Don't include presto/trino in the normal Pulsar distribution - > https://lists.apache.org/thread/jn96tct54mn0tvdot62vdslrvs38fm6d > * Updates on Presto connector for PIP-62 - > https://lists.apache.org/thread/f9n6sc2mrboq5sxhjbr7gvdl8vqp9fpk > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 3:59 PM Nicolò Boschi wrote: > > > Resurrecting this thread. > > > > 2.9 is almost released and it hasn't been merged yet > > > > Extending the discussion to other connectors, it looks like there has > been > > no progress on PIP-62. > > My concern is that a lot of Pulsar IO connectors dependencies we are > > running are obsolete with several security reports > > > > I see there are interesting comments in the issue ( > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/10219) and Sijie exported the > > pulsar-io dir to https://github.com/apache/pulsar-connectors but it's > > outdated > > > > From my point of view, we have to: > > - reimport all the connectors source codes with newest ones (including > > integration tests) > > - add periodic CI jobs for connectors to run against master, 2.9-latest, > > 2.8-latest, 2.7-latest to verify breaking changes > > - define a release cycle/management for connectors (we should improve the > > PIP doc). IMO it's not clear if each connector will have its own release > > versions and how we'll handle it (git tags, artifacts deployment..) > > - update pulsar release script in order to get the connectors artifacts > > (retrieving the .nar or building it from source?) > > - update docs > > - remove pulsar-io dir from Pulsar repo > > > > It's the perfect timing to schedule this work for 2.10 > > > > What is missing? How's the situation? Is there a roadblock I haven't > seen? > > I think it's better to take another discussion for Presto since it will > > come to another end > > > > > > Il giorno sab 14 ago 2021 alle ore 15:21 Enrico Olivelli < > > eolive...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > > Sijie > > > > > > Il Ven 13 Ago 2021, 22:00 Sijie Guo ha scritto: > > > > > > > You can follow the progress at > > > https://github.com/trinodb/trino/pull/8020. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the pointer > > > > > > > > > > > The original code doesn't conform to TrinoDB's standard. Marvin is > > > > actively following up on that. > > > > > > > > Our goal is still to get this completed as part of the 2.9 release. > > > > > > > > > > Wonderful > > > > > > Thanks > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > - Sijie > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 2:04 AM Enrico Olivelli > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > How is the Presto work going ? > > > > > IIRC the plan was to remove it from the Pulsar code base and let it > > be > > > > > hosted at Trino. > > > > > > > > > > If this is not going to happen within the 2.9.0 release timeline > > > > > (September?) I would prefer to upgrade to "Trino". > > > > > Probably we will have a downside problem that recent versions of > > > > > Presto/Trino do not work on JDK8 but only on JDK11. > > > > > > > > > > I believe that in that case we could open a separate thread to say > > that > > > > > Pulsar SQL in 2.9.0 will work only on JDK11. > > > > > In Pulsar 2.8.0 we added official compatibility with JDK11 (and it > is > > > the > > > > > preferred version, as it is the version used in the Docker images), > > so > > > > > requiring JDK11 for Pulsar SQL 2.9.0 does not sound bad to me. > > > > > > > > > > My primary concern is that the version of Presto that we are > running > > is > > > > > obsolete and there are several security reports against it or its > > third > > > > > party dependencies. > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Nicolò Boschi > > >
[VOTE] Apache Pulsar 2.9.0 candidate 4
This is the fourth release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.9.0. It fixes the following issues: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/milestone/30?closed=1 *** 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-2.9.0-candidate-4/ SHA-512 checksums: 659afa98e2475fc95f3126aab47d365e3e43a9d419c9cbe20c99520029f0b28aec2f471da5ccf47b92017a4c7943fc113a96232b075eb675e2b9df3601b2a7ad apache-pulsar-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT-bin.tar.gz ed93aa1b57411c5d153bcd1433db6679ddb9b4d23896b39c1a1ad8edc70aaa7e95842a5770d6d55b466ab90500e17f50549673601556e767f7c12135ae360e85 apache-pulsar-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT-src.tar.gz Maven staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachepulsar-1104/ The tag to be voted upon: v2.9.0-candidate-4 (bdd57b21a66b81aab72c4ec39d516ffd2a769c35) https://github.com/apache/pulsar/releases/tag/v2.9.0-candidate-4 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. Enrico Olivelli
[GitHub] [pulsar-dotpulsar] dunkymole commented on issue #84: Recover after network disconnect
dunkymole commented on issue #84: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-dotpulsar/issues/84#issuecomment-971380922 Sorry, I didnt see this callout. Are you saying bi-directional heartbeating has been implemented and merged to master? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [pulsar-manager] pgandhap commented on issue #196: Only start Postgresql in the Docker container if required
pgandhap commented on issue #196:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-manager/issues/196#issuecomment-971340283
I am also facing the issue while setting up customised postgresql database .
Please help me if someone already had a solution for the same . Please find
below steps i followed .
1 . I used below command to set custom postgresql database .
docker run -it -p 9527:9527 -p 7750:7750 -e REDIRECT_HOST=http://localhost
-e REDIRECT_PORT=9527 -e DRIVER_CLASS_NAME=org.postgresql.Driver -e
URL='jdbc:postgresql://127.0.0.1:5432/pulsar_manager' -e USERNAME=postgres -e
PASSWORD=postgres -e LOG_LEVEL=DEBUG -e
SPRING_CONFIGURATION_FILE=/pulsar-manager/pulsar-manager/application.properties
apachepulsar/pulsar-manager:v0.2.0 /bin/sh
2 . After that i set username and password for pulsar-manager using below
command .
curl -H "X-XSRF-TOKEN:a9e79b0y-5f32-49b9-94a4-26cd4e93da92" -H
"Cookie:XSRF-TOKEN=a9e79b0y-5f32-49b9-94a4-26cd4e93da92" -H
"Content-Type:application/json" -X PUT
http://localhost:7750/pulsar-manager/users/superuser -d "{"name": "admin",
"password": "apachepulsar", "description": "test", "email":
"pgan...@in.ibm.com"}"
3 . Login to pulsar-manager ui by using above credentials (
admin/apachepulsar ) , which fails . It says incorrect username and password .
Any help is highly appreciated . Thanks !!
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
