> We'd better keep the tag name sync with previous one, using
`release-4.15.1` instead of `v4.15.1
We will do that in the finalize steps.
FYI
https://bookkeeper.apache.org/community/release-guide#finalize-the-release
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 11:43, Hang Chen wrote:
> Hi Yong, thanks for your grea
+1 (binding)
- verified packages checksum and signatures, they look good.
- the source package build and test all run successfully.
- in both binary packages(server & all), 'bin/bookkeeper standalone' and
'bin/bookkeeper shell bookiesanity' runs well.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 11:43 AM Hang Chen
Hi Yong, thanks for your great work!
+1 (non-binding)
Verified the following list.
- Verified the license and checksum
- Build from the source code with JDK17
- Run bin/bkperf to check journal writing
- Integrate with Pulsar branch-2.11
- build from the source code with BookKeeper 4.15.1 depe
+1 (binding)
deployed and verified in our own test environment, no problems were found
thank you !
Yong Zhang 于2022年8月24日周三 10:41写道：
> Hi everyone,
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 4.15.1,
> as follows:
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve t
Thank you for voting!
---
> Why are there no such fixes for cherry pick indexDirs, so there will be
problems when indexDirs are specified independently. For the function fixes
of indexDirs, please refer to
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3419
Look like that is a new feature and we do
hello,Yang Yong
Why are there no such fixes for cherry pick indexDirs, so there will be
problems when indexDirs are specified independently. For the function fixes
of indexDirs, please refer to
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/3419
Yong Zhang 于2022年8月24日周三 10:41写道：
> Hi everyone,
> Pl
+1 (binding)
Smoke test with localbookie passed.
Build from packaged sources succeeds, some test failed but they look like
known flakes on CI
I left a couple of comments on the release notes, the rest looks good.
Thank you!
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 7:33 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> +1 (binding)
1.The first question, I don't understand what you mean, if it is an operation
error, which leads to the wrong writing of the offline node, there is no way to
avoid it.
The current offline command, if the operation is wrong, it may also be offline
to the wrong bookie node??
2.Before going offline
