Re: [discuss] prometheus metrics doesn't satisfy with OpenMetrics format

[ZhangJian He]

ping @enrico @matteo

ZhangJian He  于2022年2月8日周二 16:07写道：

> Sorry for missing the information.
> Before I upgrade the prom client, pulsar metrics is
> ```
>
> - pulsar_connection_closed_total_count
>
> - pulsar_connection_created_total_count
>
> - pulsar_source_received_total_1min
>
> - system_exceptions_total_1min
>
> ```
>
> After
>
> ```
>
> - pulsar_connection_closed_total_count_total
>
> - pulsar_connection_created_total_count_total
>
> - pulsar_source_received_total_1min_total
>
> - system_exceptions_total_1min_total
>
> ```
>
> Prometheus client adds a `_total` suffix in pulsar metrics, because they
> require all counters to have `_total` suffix, if your metric name is not
> ended with `_total`, they will add it.
>
> I believe that the right name which satisfies `OpenMetrics` should be
> ```
>
> - pulsar_connection_closed_total
>
> - pulsar_connection_created_total
>
> - pulsar_source_received_1min_total
>
> - system_exceptions_1min_total
>
> ```
>
> Summary, upgrade prometheus client introduces breaking change for these
> metrics names which did not end with `_total`.
>
>
> PS: If you let the prometheus client add `_total` in the previous version,
> these metrics are not impacted.
>
> Enrico Olivelli  于2022年2月8日周二 15:54写道：
>
>> What happens when you upgrade the Prometheus client ?
>>
>> Can you share some examples of "before" and "after" ?
>> My understanding is that you posted how it looks like "after" the upgrade
>>
>> Thanks for working on this
>>
>> Enrico
>>
>> Il giorno mar 8 feb 2022 alle ore 08:21 ZhangJian He
>>  ha scritto:
>> >
>> > Before, I am working on bumping Prometheus client to 0.12.0, but they
>> > introduce a breaking change,
>> > https://github.com/prometheus/client_java/pull/615, adopt the
>> `OpenMetrics
>> > format`, which acquired all counters have `_total` suffix,
>> >
>> > but our metrics now have these metrics, there are not satisfied with the
>> > OpenMetrics format, for example:
>> >
>> > - pulsar_connection_closed_total_count
>> >
>> > - pulsar_connection_created_total_count
>> >
>> > - pulsar_source_received_total_1min
>> >
>> > - system_exceptions_total_1min
>> >
>> >
>> > I want to discuss, Should we adapt the `OpenMetrics format`?
>> >
>> > If we want to be compatible with Open Metrics, I suggest adding metrics
>> > named `_total` in a release version like 2.10.0, and removing the origin
>> > metric in the next release like 2.11.0.
>>
>

[Discussion] keep doc repo stay in pulsar repo?

[Yu]

Hi Pulsarers,

As we move forward with PIP 87 [1], we’ve migrated the Pulsar website
contents to an independent repo, pulsar-site, per the agreement made by our
community [2].

This migration makes us think of the doc repo. After thinking twice, our
recommendation is to **keep the Pulsar doc repo as it is** in the pulsar
repo [3] rather than migrate it to the pulsar-site repo [4].

Context:

   - Currently, Pulsar doc and code are hosted in the same GitHub repo,
   which causes some doc management issues (such as hard to measure the
   quality and usage of doc).
   -

   Examples of other open source communities that use separate GitHub repos
   for doc and code are Kubesphere, PingCAP, Milvus. To some degree, it
   enhances the efficiency of doc management and development workflow.
   -

   Separate doc repo has many advantages, however, after weighing up pros
   and cons of the two methods, we do not choose it. We’ve summarized below
   both methods to highlight the benefits and limitations.


ACTION: Please review and vote within 72 hours. **If there is no discussion
or objection, we’ll keep it as it is (method 1).**

We’d love your feedback! Thanks!


~~


# Method 1

Pulsar doc and code are in the **same** GitHub repo.


## Advantages

1) Doc contributors do not need to change their habits.

Pulsar doc contributors are accustomed to updating docs at the pulsar repo
[3].

2) Manage code PRs and their relevant doc PRs and issues conveniently.

Contributors can get all the information about issues (eg. what’s the
issue, issue resolution process, etc) and link them in one repo.


## Disadvantages

1) To some degree, it’s difficult to improve the efficiency of doc
management and development workflow.

If doc and code are hosted in the same GitHub repo, it is hard to collect
and analyze doc metrics.


~~


# Method 2

Pulsar doc and code are in **different** GitHub repos.


## Advantages

1) Improve the efficiency of doc management and development workflow.

If doc is hosted in an independent GitHub repo, it is easier to measure the
quality and usage of our documentation.

For example, we can collect metrics from GitHub Insights or other tools
like SourceLevel [5], to understand dynamics and adjust appropriately.


### Disadvantages

1) Doc contributors need to change where they update documentation.

CHANGE: Pulsar doc contributors need to update docs at the pulsar-site repo
[4].
2) Doc commits are calculated in the pulsar-site rather than the pulsar
repo, which may decrease doc visibility.
3) Contributors need to manage code PRs and their relevant doc PRs and
issues in two different repos.

~~

[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/vrd764pv66mbnctttk2h3dvvhls92bgy

[2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/06sl2mh5jm1llq12w5m4hw6pvfx32vkd

[3] https://github.com/apache/pulsar

[4] https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site

[5] https://sourcelevel.io/

Re: [DISCUSS] Releasing Pulsar-client-go 0.8.0

[Nicolò Boschi]

+1 non binding

Il giorno ven 11 feb 2022 alle ore 01:03 ZhangJian He 
ha scritto:

> +1 non binding
>
> Ming Luo  于2022年2月11日周五 07:39写道：
>
> > +1 non binding
> >
> > > On Feb 10, 2022, at 6:37 PM, Neng Lu  wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 non-binding
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 6:46 PM Matteo Merli 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Matteo Merli
> > >> 
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 6:44 PM r...@apache.org <
> ranxiaolong...@gmail.com
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hello Everyone:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I hope you’ve all been doing well. In the past two months, we have
> > >>>
> > >>> fixed a number of bugs related to connection leaks and added
> > >>>
> > >>> some new features. For more information refer to:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-go/milestone/9
> > >>> 
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> For that reason, I think we should be releasing a 0.8.0 version with
> > >>>
> > >>> what we have today.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks
> > >>>
> > >>> Xiaolong Ran
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Neng
> >
> >
>


-- 
Nicolò Boschi

Re: [DISCUSS] Releasing Pulsar-client-go 0.8.0

[ZhangJian He]

+1 non binding

Ming Luo  于2022年2月11日周五 07:39写道：

> +1 non binding
>
> > On Feb 10, 2022, at 6:37 PM, Neng Lu  wrote:
> >
> > +1 non-binding
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 6:46 PM Matteo Merli 
> wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Matteo Merli
> >> 
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 6:44 PM r...@apache.org  >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello Everyone:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I hope you’ve all been doing well. In the past two months, we have
> >>>
> >>> fixed a number of bugs related to connection leaks and added
> >>>
> >>> some new features. For more information refer to:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-go/milestone/9
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> For that reason, I think we should be releasing a 0.8.0 version with
> >>>
> >>> what we have today.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Xiaolong Ran
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards,
> > Neng
>
>

[PR] Update .asf.yaml to protect current release branches

[Michael Marshall]

Hello,

Our current apache/pulsar GitHub repo does not have protections on our
current release branches. I think we should protect against deletion
and force pushes, at a minimum.

Here is my PR to update the .asf.yaml to comply with these rules:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14226. There is more detail in
the PR. Please review, if you're interested.

Thanks,
Michael

Re: [DISCUSS] Releasing Pulsar-client-go 0.8.0

[Ming Luo]

+1 non binding

> On Feb 10, 2022, at 6:37 PM, Neng Lu  wrote:
> 
> +1 non-binding
> 
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 6:46 PM Matteo Merli  wrote:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Matteo Merli
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 6:44 PM r...@apache.org 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello Everyone:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I hope you’ve all been doing well. In the past two months, we have
>>> 
>>> fixed a number of bugs related to connection leaks and added
>>> 
>>> some new features. For more information refer to:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-go/milestone/9
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For that reason, I think we should be releasing a 0.8.0 version with
>>> 
>>> what we have today.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Xiaolong Ran
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best Regards,
> Neng

Re: [DISCUSS] Releasing Pulsar-client-go 0.8.0

[Neng Lu]

+1 non-binding

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 6:46 PM Matteo Merli  wrote:

> +1
>
>
> --
> Matteo Merli
> 
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 6:44 PM r...@apache.org 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Everyone:
> >
> >
> > I hope you’ve all been doing well. In the past two months, we have
> >
> > fixed a number of bugs related to connection leaks and added
> >
> > some new features. For more information refer to:
> >
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-go/milestone/9
> > 
> >
> >
> > For that reason, I think we should be releasing a 0.8.0 version with
> >
> > what we have today.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Xiaolong Ran
>


-- 
Best Regards,
Neng

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Pulsar 2.8.3

[Neng Lu]

+1 non-binding

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 1:09 AM Hang Chen  wrote:

> +1
>
> Best,
> Hang
>
> PengHui Li  于2022年2月10日周四 12:06写道：
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > - Penghui
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:18 AM Lari Hotari  wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > > Thank you, Michael, for volunteering to be the release manager for
> 2.8.3.
> > >
> > > -Lari
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 8:16 PM Michael Marshall 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Pulsar Community,
> > > >
> > > > We have had several important fixes since we released 2.8.2 a month
> > > > ago. I propose we start the process to release 2.8.3, and I volunteer
> > > > to be the release manager.
> > > >
> > > > Here [0] you can find the list of 90 commits to branch-2.8 since the
> > > > 2.8.2 release. There are 14 closed PRs targeting 2.8.3 that have not
> > > > yet been cherry-picked [1]. I will start reviewing and cherry-picking
> > > > these.
> > > >
> > > > There are 16 open PRs labeled with `release/2.8.3` [1]. I'll follow
> up
> > > > on each of those PRs to see if they will be completed soon or will
> > > > need to be pushed to 2.8.4.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > > [0] - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.8.2...branch-2.8
> > > > [1] -
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.8.3+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.8+is%3Aopen
> > > >
> > >
>


-- 
Best Regards,
Neng

[GitHub] [pulsar-helm-chart] mkoertgen opened a new pull request #227: Remove breaking labelmap actions, #226, #100

[GitBox]

mkoertgen opened a new pull request #227:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/pull/227


   Fixes #226
   
   ### Motivation
   
   *Explain here the context, and why you're making that change. What is the 
problem you're trying to solve.*
   
   ### Modifications
   
   *Describe the modifications you've done.*
   
   ### Verifying this change
   
   - [ ] Make sure that the change passes the CI checks.
   


-- 
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-helm-chart] mkoertgen opened a new issue #226: PodMonitor: dynamic labelMap-action breaking since prom-operator 0.54

[GitBox]

mkoertgen opened a new issue #226:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/issues/226


   **Describe the bug**
   Dynamic labelmap-action in the current podMonitor-templates causes 
prom-operator skipping the PodMonitor altogether.
   
   **To Reproduce**
   Steps to reproduce the behavior:
   1. Install 
[kube-prometheus-stack>=32.2.0](https://github.com/prometheus-community/helm-charts/releases/tag/kube-prometheus-stack-32.2.0
 or 
[prometheus-operator>=0.54](https://github.com/prometheus-operator/prometheus-operator/tree/v0.54.0)
   2. Install pulsar-helm-chart with `podMonitors` enabled, e.g. 
[zookeeper](https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/blob/master/charts/pulsar/values.yaml#L304)
   3. See your metrics disappear
   4. See error in prometheus-operator-logs
   
   ```
   level=warn ts=2022-02-10T21:35:52.803132682Z caller=operator.go:1957 
component=prometheusoperator msg="skipping podmonitor" error="\"\" is invalid 
'replacement' for labelmap action" podmonitor=pulsar/pulsar-recovery 
namespace=observability prometheus=prometheus-community-kube-prometheus
   level=warn ts=2022-02-10T21:35:52.803317285Z caller=operator.go:1957 
component=prometheusoperator msg="skipping podmonitor" error="\"\" is invalid 
'replacement' for labelmap action" podmonitor=pulsar/pulsar-zookeeper 
namespace=observability prometheus=prometheus-community-kube-prometheus
   level=warn ts=2022-02-10T21:35:52.803459387Z caller=operator.go:1957 
component=prometheusoperator msg="skipping podmonitor" error="\"\" is invalid 
'replacement' for labelmap action" podmonitor=pulsar/pulsar-broker 
namespace=observability prometheus=prometheus-community-kube-prometheus
   level=warn ts=2022-02-10T21:35:52.803597189Z caller=operator.go:1957 
component=prometheusoperator msg="skipping podmonitor" error="\"\" is invalid 
'replacement' for labelmap action" podmonitor=pulsar/pulsar-proxy 
namespace=observability prometheus=prometheus-community-kube-prometheus
   ```
   
   **Expected behavior**
   A clear and concise description of what you expected to happen.
   
   **Screenshots**
   
![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/7235760/153505393-2d1a1e63-c4c5-4bb0-a7b0-c585db43d9a2.png)
   
   **Additional context**
   See related issue / change
   - 
https://github.com/prometheus-operator/prometheus-operator/issues/3942#issuecomment-1035552992
   


-- 
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

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Aloys Zhang

[Michael Marshall]

Congratulations, Aloys Zhang!

- Michael

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 5:35 AM Enrico Olivelli  wrote:
>
> Congrats!
>
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 11:55 mattison chao
>  ha scritto:
> >
> > Congratulations,  Aloys Zhang
> >
> > Best,
> > Mattison
> >
> > > On Feb 10, 2022, at 5:26 PM, Lari Hotari  wrote:
> > >
> > > Congratulations Aloys Zhang!
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 4:46 AM linlin  wrote:
> > >
> > >> The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Aloys
> > >> Zhang
> > >>
> > >> (https://github.com/aloyszhang) to become a committer and we are pleased
> > >> to
> > >>
> > >> announce that he has accepted.
> > >>
> > >> Aloys Zhang joined the Pulsar community in June 2020 and contributed a 
> > >> lot
> > >> of commits
> > >> to the community, including PIP-70 which brings lightweight broker entry
> > >> metadata
> > >> to Pulsar and some other pull requests:
> > >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+assignee%3Aaloyszhang+.
> > >>
> > >> Welcome and Congratulations, Aloys Zhang! Please enjoy the journey as a
> > >> committer :)
> > >>
> > >> Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Aloys Zhang onboard!
> > >>
> > >> Best Regards,
> > >> Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
> > >>
> >

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Nicolò Boschi]

Penghui,


I didn't know that there were so many known bugs around transactions
scheduled for 2.9.3, my bad.

However, as Enrico pointed out, the issue impacts Pulsar clients that are
not using the transactions, so we can't just say - ok, just another bug
about transactions, it's not critical since they're not production ready
(btw, where we state that they aren't production ready on the
documentation?).


The workaround you mentioned is not always viable, since you can have
clients of different tenants/customers that are not using transactions
while, at the same time, a little portion that are experiencing with them.

I agree that it is uncommon to have only one message produced. On the other
hand, it's a very common case where other projects using Pulsar have
unit/integration tests that write only one message and expect to be
consumed (that's because they test the application logic and not Pulsar).


Given that, it's fair to say that 2.9.2 is not worse than 2.9.1, so,
finally, we can go ahead.

Looking forward to see 2.9.3 soon


I tested the artifacts, so I'll put my vote here:


+1 (non binding)


Checks:

- Checksum and signatures

- Apache Rat check passes

- Compile from source w JDK11

- Build docker image from source

- Run Pulsar standalone and produce-consume from CLI


BR,

Nicolò

Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 13:39 PengHui Li  ha
scritto:

> > Please go ahead with the release, I won't VOTE on this thread.
> But I hope we can follow up soon with a new release, otherwise due to that
> bug
> you cannot enable transactions on your Pulsar cluster if you have to
> support Pulsar client that do not enable transactions
>
>
> Yes, agree. We will follow up the 2.9.3 soon. There are other
> ongoing transaction fixes
> we will complete them ASAP and provide a version with certain guarantees
> for transaction stability.
> We are doing lots of tests these days, 2.9.3 should be a good version for
> transactions.
>
> Thanks,
> Penghui
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:37 PM Lin Lin  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > +1(binding)
> >
> > 1. Checked the signature
> > 2. Start standalone
> > 3. Publish and consume successfully
> > 4. Checked function
> >
>


-- 
Nicolò Boschi

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li]

> Please go ahead with the release, I won't VOTE on this thread.
But I hope we can follow up soon with a new release, otherwise due to that
bug
you cannot enable transactions on your Pulsar cluster if you have to
support Pulsar client that do not enable transactions


Yes, agree. We will follow up the 2.9.3 soon. There are other
ongoing transaction fixes
we will complete them ASAP and provide a version with certain guarantees
for transaction stability.
We are doing lots of tests these days, 2.9.3 should be a good version for
transactions.

Thanks,
Penghui


On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:37 PM Lin Lin  wrote:

>
>
> +1(binding)
>
> 1. Checked the signature
> 2. Start standalone
> 3. Publish and consume successfully
> 4. Checked function
>

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Aloys Zhang

[Yu]

Congrats, Aloys Zhang!

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:58 PM Ruguo Yu  wrote:

> Congratulations, Aloys Zhang!
>
> Thanks
>
> Ruguo Yu
>
>
>
> On 2022/02/10 02:46:11 linlin wrote:
>
> > The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Aloys
> Zhang
>
> >
>
> > (https://github.com/aloyszhang) to become a committer and we are
> pleased to
>
> >
>
> > announce that he has accepted.
>
> >
>
> > Aloys Zhang joined the Pulsar community in June 2020 and contributed a
> lot
>
> > of commits
>
> > to the community, including PIP-70 which brings lightweight broker entry
>
> > metadata
>
> > to Pulsar and some other pull requests:
>
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+assignee%3Aaloyszhang+.
>
> >
>
> > Welcome and Congratulations, Aloys Zhang! Please enjoy the journey as a
>
> > committer :)
>
> >
>
> > Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Aloys Zhang onboard!
>
> >
>
> > Best Regards,
>
> > Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Aloys Zhang

[Ruguo Yu]

Congratulations, Aloys Zhang!

Thanks

Ruguo Yu

 

On 2022/02/10 02:46:11 linlin wrote:

> The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Aloys Zhang

> 

> (https://github.com/aloyszhang) to become a committer and we are pleased to

> 

> announce that he has accepted.

> 

> Aloys Zhang joined the Pulsar community in June 2020 and contributed a lot

> of commits

> to the community, including PIP-70 which brings lightweight broker entry

> metadata

> to Pulsar and some other pull requests:

> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+assignee%3Aaloyszhang+.

> 

> Welcome and Congratulations, Aloys Zhang! Please enjoy the journey as a

> committer :)

> 

> Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Aloys Zhang onboard!

> 

> Best Regards,

> Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC

> 

 

 

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Lin Lin]

+1(binding)

1. Checked the signature
2. Start standalone
3. Publish and consume successfully
4. Checked function

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Aloys Zhang

[Enrico Olivelli]

Congrats!

Enrico

Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 11:55 mattison chao
 ha scritto:
>
> Congratulations,  Aloys Zhang
>
> Best,
> Mattison
>
> > On Feb 10, 2022, at 5:26 PM, Lari Hotari  wrote:
> >
> > Congratulations Aloys Zhang!
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 4:46 AM linlin  wrote:
> >
> >> The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Aloys
> >> Zhang
> >>
> >> (https://github.com/aloyszhang) to become a committer and we are pleased
> >> to
> >>
> >> announce that he has accepted.
> >>
> >> Aloys Zhang joined the Pulsar community in June 2020 and contributed a lot
> >> of commits
> >> to the community, including PIP-70 which brings lightweight broker entry
> >> metadata
> >> to Pulsar and some other pull requests:
> >> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+assignee%3Aaloyszhang+.
> >>
> >> Welcome and Congratulations, Aloys Zhang! Please enjoy the journey as a
> >> committer :)
> >>
> >> Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Aloys Zhang onboard!
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
> >>
>

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Enrico Olivelli]

Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 11:25 PengHui Li
 ha scritto:
>
> > wow, this is incredible, we really should slow down in cherry-picking
> stuff to release branches.
> But this is off-topic, as this is a VOTE thread.
>
> Yes, as discussed here
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/b4wr2chgdrqjgjq4omf6mtfc3g2f9cnx
> 2.9.1 almost equals 2.9.0, 2.9.1 contains the security issue fixes,
> but without any other issue fixes(Includes fixes for some serious issues)
> so commits in 2.9.2 is from 2.9.0 to 2.9.2 lasted more than 2 months.
>
> Most of the PRs cherry-picked to branch-2.9 are bug fixes or important
> enhancements
> such as performance issues. The reason is not we cherry-picked too fast,
> is released too slow. The slower we publish, users have to build by
> themselves,
> if we slow down the cherry-picking, ignore some fixes, this is tantamount
> to pushing users
> to a situation where they maintain their own branches.
> This is definitely not what we want to see.
>
> We should carefully consider whether is it worth delaying the release,
> Explain again, https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 is happening in
> specific conditions,
> This often does not occur with the normal use of topics, only for the topic
> will not get a new message.
> The data will not be lost, and we have a way to work around it.l


Please go ahead with the release, I won't VOTE on this thread.
But I hope we can follow up soon with a new release, otherwise due to that bug
you cannot enable transactions on your Pulsar cluster if you have to
support Pulsar client that do not enable transactions

Enrico



>
> Penghui
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 5:03 PM Hang Chen  wrote:
>
> > Hi Enrico,
> >  In my opinion, the transactions is still in developing state and
> > not stable yet. For those critical bug fixes, we'd better prepare
> > 2.9.3 release earlier instead of blocking the current 2.9.2 release.
> > Otherwise, if we make new release candidate for any new find bugs, It
> > will be a huge task for the release manager and make the release
> > process delay too much time.
> >  I suggest to move them to 2.9.3 instead of blocking the 2.9.2 release.
> >
> > Best,
> > Hang
> >
> > Enrico Olivelli  于2022年2月10日周四 16:15写道：
> > >
> > > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 08:39 PengHui Li
> > >  ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > Enrico,
> > > >
> > > > There are 40 closed PRs
> > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.3+is%3Aclosed
> > > > and most of them cherry-picked to branch-2.9, so you mean the 2.9.2
> > >
> > > wow, this is incredible, we really should slow down in cherry-picking
> > > stuff to release branches.
> > > But this is off-topic, as this is a VOTE thread.
> > >
> > > > contains all of them? or just contain
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 ?
> > > > I have no objection if we roll out the new RC based on current
> > branch-2.9
> > > > since
> > > > there are some critical fixes for transactions(Of course, I don't think
> > > > there will be any problems moving them to 2.9.3)
> > > > If only for https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192, I don't
> > think it's
> > > > necessary to roll out the new RC.
> > >
> > > I believe it is better to cut a new release candidate out of branch-2.9
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Penghui
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:28 PM Enrico Olivelli 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Gao,
> > > > > The patch https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 has been
> > merged.
> > > > > I believe that is better to roll out a new RC and have Pulsar 2.9.2
> > > > > released
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the good discussion
> > > > >
> > > > > Enrico
> > > > >
> > > > > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 05:11 PengHui Li
> > > > >  ha scritto:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It should not be a blocking issue, as I mentioned before we can
> > work
> > > > > around
> > > > > > and the issue happens for specific conditions
> > > > > > And there are some other ongoing transaction fixes, for
> > transactions
> > > > > using
> > > > > > the latest branch-2.9 is the best option, not 2.9.2 even contain
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I suggest moving forward with the 2.9.2 release and focusing on
> > the
> > > > > > transaction fixes in 2.9.3.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Penghui
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:02 AM Lin Lin 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My personal opinion:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If this is a blocking issue, we should tag the issue and raise
> > it in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > discussion stage, not in the final release stage, which will
> > waste a
> > > > > lot of
> > > > > > > time of the release manager. But I see this issue is already
> > closed.
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We can evaluate the repair time of this issue. If it does 

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Aloys Zhang

[mattison chao]

Congratulations,  Aloys Zhang

Best,
Mattison

> On Feb 10, 2022, at 5:26 PM, Lari Hotari  wrote:
> 
> Congratulations Aloys Zhang!
> 
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 4:46 AM linlin  wrote:
> 
>> The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Aloys
>> Zhang
>> 
>> (https://github.com/aloyszhang) to become a committer and we are pleased
>> to
>> 
>> announce that he has accepted.
>> 
>> Aloys Zhang joined the Pulsar community in June 2020 and contributed a lot
>> of commits
>> to the community, including PIP-70 which brings lightweight broker entry
>> metadata
>> to Pulsar and some other pull requests:
>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+assignee%3Aaloyszhang+.
>> 
>> Welcome and Congratulations, Aloys Zhang! Please enjoy the journey as a
>> committer :)
>> 
>> Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Aloys Zhang onboard!
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
>> 

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[PengHui Li]

> wow, this is incredible, we really should slow down in cherry-picking
stuff to release branches.
But this is off-topic, as this is a VOTE thread.

Yes, as discussed here
https://lists.apache.org/thread/b4wr2chgdrqjgjq4omf6mtfc3g2f9cnx
2.9.1 almost equals 2.9.0, 2.9.1 contains the security issue fixes,
but without any other issue fixes(Includes fixes for some serious issues)
so commits in 2.9.2 is from 2.9.0 to 2.9.2 lasted more than 2 months.

Most of the PRs cherry-picked to branch-2.9 are bug fixes or important
enhancements
such as performance issues. The reason is not we cherry-picked too fast,
is released too slow. The slower we publish, users have to build by
themselves,
if we slow down the cherry-picking, ignore some fixes, this is tantamount
to pushing users
to a situation where they maintain their own branches.
This is definitely not what we want to see.

We should carefully consider whether is it worth delaying the release,
Explain again, https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 is happening in
specific conditions,
This often does not occur with the normal use of topics, only for the topic
will not get a new message.
The data will not be lost, and we have a way to work around it.

Penghui

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 5:03 PM Hang Chen  wrote:

> Hi Enrico,
>  In my opinion, the transactions is still in developing state and
> not stable yet. For those critical bug fixes, we'd better prepare
> 2.9.3 release earlier instead of blocking the current 2.9.2 release.
> Otherwise, if we make new release candidate for any new find bugs, It
> will be a huge task for the release manager and make the release
> process delay too much time.
>  I suggest to move them to 2.9.3 instead of blocking the 2.9.2 release.
>
> Best,
> Hang
>
> Enrico Olivelli  于2022年2月10日周四 16:15写道：
> >
> > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 08:39 PengHui Li
> >  ha scritto:
> > >
> > > Enrico,
> > >
> > > There are 40 closed PRs
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.3+is%3Aclosed
> > > and most of them cherry-picked to branch-2.9, so you mean the 2.9.2
> >
> > wow, this is incredible, we really should slow down in cherry-picking
> > stuff to release branches.
> > But this is off-topic, as this is a VOTE thread.
> >
> > > contains all of them? or just contain
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 ?
> > > I have no objection if we roll out the new RC based on current
> branch-2.9
> > > since
> > > there are some critical fixes for transactions(Of course, I don't think
> > > there will be any problems moving them to 2.9.3)
> > > If only for https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192, I don't
> think it's
> > > necessary to roll out the new RC.
> >
> > I believe it is better to cut a new release candidate out of branch-2.9
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Penghui
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:28 PM Enrico Olivelli 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Gao,
> > > > The patch https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 has been
> merged.
> > > > I believe that is better to roll out a new RC and have Pulsar 2.9.2
> > > > released
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the good discussion
> > > >
> > > > Enrico
> > > >
> > > > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 05:11 PengHui Li
> > > >  ha scritto:
> > > > >
> > > > > It should not be a blocking issue, as I mentioned before we can
> work
> > > > around
> > > > > and the issue happens for specific conditions
> > > > > And there are some other ongoing transaction fixes, for
> transactions
> > > > using
> > > > > the latest branch-2.9 is the best option, not 2.9.2 even contain
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > > >
> > > > > So I suggest moving forward with the 2.9.2 release and focusing on
> the
> > > > > transaction fixes in 2.9.3.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Penghui
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:02 AM Lin Lin 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My personal opinion:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If this is a blocking issue, we should tag the issue and raise
> it in
> > > > the
> > > > > > discussion stage, not in the final release stage, which will
> waste a
> > > > lot of
> > > > > > time of the release manager. But I see this issue is already
> closed.
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can evaluate the repair time of this issue. If it does not
> take too
> > > > > > much time, I think it can be merged into 2.9.2. If it is too
> late, I
> > > > > > suggest move it to 2.9.3, since there are other serious issues
> waiting
> > > > to
> > > > > > be released, we can run in small steps.
> > > > > >
> > > >
>

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Aloys Zhang

[Lari Hotari]

Congratulations Aloys Zhang!

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 4:46 AM linlin  wrote:

> The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Aloys
> Zhang
>
> (https://github.com/aloyszhang) to become a committer and we are pleased
> to
>
> announce that he has accepted.
>
> Aloys Zhang joined the Pulsar community in June 2020 and contributed a lot
> of commits
> to the community, including PIP-70 which brings lightweight broker entry
> metadata
> to Pulsar and some other pull requests:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+assignee%3Aaloyszhang+.
>
> Welcome and Congratulations, Aloys Zhang! Please enjoy the journey as a
> committer :)
>
> Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Aloys Zhang onboard!
>
> Best Regards,
> Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
>

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Aloys Zhang

[Haiting Jiang]

Congrats! Aloys Zhang

Thanks,
Haiting

On 2022/02/10 09:10:02 Hang Chen wrote:
> Congratulations,  Aloys Zhang
> 
> Best,
> Hang
> 
> PengHui Li  于2022年2月10日周四 12:14写道：
> >
> > Congratulations,  Aloys Zhang
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:19 AM ZhangJian He  wrote:
> >
> > > Congratulations, Aloys Zhang!
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > ZhangJian He
> > >
> > > r...@apache.org  于2022年2月10日周四 11:16写道：
> > >
> > > > Congratulations, Aloys Zhang!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Xiaolong Ran
> > > >
> > > > linlin  于2022年2月10日周四 10:46写道：
> > > >
> > > > > The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Aloys
> > > > > Zhang
> > > > >
> > > > > (https://github.com/aloyszhang) to become a committer and we are
> > > pleased
> > > > > to
> > > > >
> > > > > announce that he has accepted.
> > > > >
> > > > > Aloys Zhang joined the Pulsar community in June 2020 and contributed a
> > > > lot
> > > > > of commits
> > > > > to the community, including PIP-70 which brings lightweight broker
> > > entry
> > > > > metadata
> > > > > to Pulsar and some other pull requests:
> > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+assignee%3Aaloyszhang+.
> > > > >
> > > > > Welcome and Congratulations, Aloys Zhang! Please enjoy the journey as 
> > > > > a
> > > > > committer :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Aloys Zhang onboard!
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> 

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Aloys Zhang

[Hang Chen]

Congratulations,  Aloys Zhang

Best,
Hang

PengHui Li  于2022年2月10日周四 12:14写道：
>
> Congratulations,  Aloys Zhang
>
> Thanks,
> Penghui
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:19 AM ZhangJian He  wrote:
>
> > Congratulations, Aloys Zhang!
> >
> > Thanks
> > ZhangJian He
> >
> > r...@apache.org  于2022年2月10日周四 11:16写道：
> >
> > > Congratulations, Aloys Zhang!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks
> > > Xiaolong Ran
> > >
> > > linlin  于2022年2月10日周四 10:46写道：
> > >
> > > > The Apache Pulsar Project Management Committee (PMC) has invited Aloys
> > > > Zhang
> > > >
> > > > (https://github.com/aloyszhang) to become a committer and we are
> > pleased
> > > > to
> > > >
> > > > announce that he has accepted.
> > > >
> > > > Aloys Zhang joined the Pulsar community in June 2020 and contributed a
> > > lot
> > > > of commits
> > > > to the community, including PIP-70 which brings lightweight broker
> > entry
> > > > metadata
> > > > to Pulsar and some other pull requests:
> > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+assignee%3Aaloyszhang+.
> > > >
> > > > Welcome and Congratulations, Aloys Zhang! Please enjoy the journey as a
> > > > committer :)
> > > >
> > > > Please join us in congratulating and welcoming Aloys Zhang onboard!
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Lin Lin on behalf of the Pulsar PMC
> > > >
> > >
> >

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Pulsar 2.8.3

[Hang Chen]

+1

Best,
Hang

PengHui Li  于2022年2月10日周四 12:06写道：
>
> +1
>
> Thank you!
>
> - Penghui
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:18 AM Lari Hotari  wrote:
>
> > +1
> > Thank you, Michael, for volunteering to be the release manager for 2.8.3.
> >
> > -Lari
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 8:16 PM Michael Marshall 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Pulsar Community,
> > >
> > > We have had several important fixes since we released 2.8.2 a month
> > > ago. I propose we start the process to release 2.8.3, and I volunteer
> > > to be the release manager.
> > >
> > > Here [0] you can find the list of 90 commits to branch-2.8 since the
> > > 2.8.2 release. There are 14 closed PRs targeting 2.8.3 that have not
> > > yet been cherry-picked [1]. I will start reviewing and cherry-picking
> > > these.
> > >
> > > There are 16 open PRs labeled with `release/2.8.3` [1]. I'll follow up
> > > on each of those PRs to see if they will be completed soon or will
> > > need to be pushed to 2.8.4.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > [0] - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/compare/v2.8.2...branch-2.8
> > > [1] -
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.8.3+-label%3Acherry-picked%2Fbranch-2.8+is%3Aopen
> > >
> >

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Hang Chen]

Hi Enrico,
 In my opinion, the transactions is still in developing state and
not stable yet. For those critical bug fixes, we'd better prepare
2.9.3 release earlier instead of blocking the current 2.9.2 release.
Otherwise, if we make new release candidate for any new find bugs, It
will be a huge task for the release manager and make the release
process delay too much time.
 I suggest to move them to 2.9.3 instead of blocking the 2.9.2 release.

Best,
Hang

Enrico Olivelli  于2022年2月10日周四 16:15写道：
>
> Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 08:39 PengHui Li
>  ha scritto:
> >
> > Enrico,
> >
> > There are 40 closed PRs
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.3+is%3Aclosed
> > and most of them cherry-picked to branch-2.9, so you mean the 2.9.2
>
> wow, this is incredible, we really should slow down in cherry-picking
> stuff to release branches.
> But this is off-topic, as this is a VOTE thread.
>
> > contains all of them? or just contain
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 ?
> > I have no objection if we roll out the new RC based on current branch-2.9
> > since
> > there are some critical fixes for transactions(Of course, I don't think
> > there will be any problems moving them to 2.9.3)
> > If only for https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192, I don't think it's
> > necessary to roll out the new RC.
>
> I believe it is better to cut a new release candidate out of branch-2.9
>
> Enrico
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Penghui
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:28 PM Enrico Olivelli  wrote:
> >
> > > Gao,
> > > The patch https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 has been merged.
> > > I believe that is better to roll out a new RC and have Pulsar 2.9.2
> > > released
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the good discussion
> > >
> > > Enrico
> > >
> > > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 05:11 PengHui Li
> > >  ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > It should not be a blocking issue, as I mentioned before we can work
> > > around
> > > > and the issue happens for specific conditions
> > > > And there are some other ongoing transaction fixes, for transactions
> > > using
> > > > the latest branch-2.9 is the best option, not 2.9.2 even contain
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > >
> > > > So I suggest moving forward with the 2.9.2 release and focusing on the
> > > > transaction fixes in 2.9.3.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Penghui
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:02 AM Lin Lin  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My personal opinion:
> > > > >
> > > > > If this is a blocking issue, we should tag the issue and raise it in
> > > the
> > > > > discussion stage, not in the final release stage, which will waste a
> > > lot of
> > > > > time of the release manager. But I see this issue is already closed.
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > > >
> > > > > We can evaluate the repair time of this issue. If it does not take too
> > > > > much time, I think it can be merged into 2.9.2. If it is too late, I
> > > > > suggest move it to 2.9.3, since there are other serious issues waiting
> > > to
> > > > > be released, we can run in small steps.
> > > > >
> > >

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.9.2 Candidate 2

[Enrico Olivelli]

Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 08:39 PengHui Li
 ha scritto:
>
> Enrico,
>
> There are 40 closed PRs
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3Arelease%2F2.9.3+is%3Aclosed
> and most of them cherry-picked to branch-2.9, so you mean the 2.9.2

wow, this is incredible, we really should slow down in cherry-picking
stuff to release branches.
But this is off-topic, as this is a VOTE thread.

> contains all of them? or just contain
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 ?
> I have no objection if we roll out the new RC based on current branch-2.9
> since
> there are some critical fixes for transactions(Of course, I don't think
> there will be any problems moving them to 2.9.3)
> If only for https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192, I don't think it's
> necessary to roll out the new RC.

I believe it is better to cut a new release candidate out of branch-2.9

Enrico

>
> Thanks,
> Penghui
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 2:28 PM Enrico Olivelli  wrote:
>
> > Gao,
> > The patch https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14192 has been merged.
> > I believe that is better to roll out a new RC and have Pulsar 2.9.2
> > released
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the good discussion
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> > Il giorno gio 10 feb 2022 alle ore 05:11 PengHui Li
> >  ha scritto:
> > >
> > > It should not be a blocking issue, as I mentioned before we can work
> > around
> > > and the issue happens for specific conditions
> > > And there are some other ongoing transaction fixes, for transactions
> > using
> > > the latest branch-2.9 is the best option, not 2.9.2 even contain
> > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > >
> > > So I suggest moving forward with the 2.9.2 release and focusing on the
> > > transaction fixes in 2.9.3.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Penghui
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:02 AM Lin Lin  wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > My personal opinion:
> > > >
> > > > If this is a blocking issue, we should tag the issue and raise it in
> > the
> > > > discussion stage, not in the final release stage, which will waste a
> > lot of
> > > > time of the release manager. But I see this issue is already closed.
> > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14097
> > > >
> > > > We can evaluate the repair time of this issue. If it does not take too
> > > > much time, I think it can be merged into 2.9.2. If it is too late, I
> > > > suggest move it to 2.9.3, since there are other serious issues waiting
> > to
> > > > be released, we can run in small steps.
> > > >
> >