Pulsar Summit San Francisco 2022 CFP is open!

Hi, all the Pulsar community members, Pulsar Summit San Francisco 2022 CFP is open now! It will be our *first-ever in-person Pulsar Summit *in San Francisco! We're glad to invite you to share your experience and add up to the wonderfulness. As a speaker, you will receive the chance to demonstrate

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New committer Prashant Kumar

Congratulations, Prashant! - Sijie On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 10:06 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Welcome! > > Very well deserved > > Enrico > > Il Lun 3 Gen 2022, 18:17 Jonathan Ellis ha scritto: > > > Congratulations, Prashant! > > > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 11:15 AM Henry Saputra > > wrote: > >

Re: BP-46 running without journal PR ready for review

Jack, Awesome! Glad to know the PR is finally out for review. Sijie On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 10:48 AM Jack Vanlightly wrote: > Hi all, > > The BP-46 running without the journal changes are ready for review. > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/2936 > > You can view the BP PR here: > ht

Re: [DISCUSS] Bookkeeper 4.14.3 release

+1 On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 6:35 AM Matteo Merli wrote: > There are few fixes in the 4.14 that would be good to release soon. > > Given that the timeline for 4.15 can be quite long, I'd propose to > release one more patch release right now. > > Let me know if there are other fixes to include. > >

Re: BP-44: direct io entry logging

+1 Looks very promising On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 9:36 AM Maurice Barnum wrote: > In order to improve IO utilization, Splunk developed support for logging > entries bypassing the kernel's buffer cache via O_DIRECT. The code has > been in production for several months, running on Linux, with an >

Re: [ANNOUNCE] new committer: Jack Vanlightly

Congrats, Jack! - Sijie On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 2:37 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache BookKeeper > has invited Jack Vanlightly to become a committer and we are pleased > to announce that he has accepted. > > > Being a committer enables easier contrib

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.14.3 release candidate #2

+1 - signatures are good - source package is good - binary package is good On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 5:17 PM Yong Zhang wrote: > Hi guys, > > Any PMC give this release one more +1 to close this vote? > > Thanks! > > On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 at 17:40, Nicolò Boschi wrote: > > > +1 (non binding) > > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.14.2

+1 On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 11:59 PM Yong Zhang wrote: > > Hi, > > We have changed the BouncyCastle at this PR > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/2631, > which introduces an Incompatible issue. Detail: > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/10937. > > This also blocks the user upgrade

[ANNOUNCE] New Committer: Yong Zhang

Zhang! Sijie Guo on behalf of Apache BookKeeper PMC

Re: [VOTE] BookKeeper release 4.14.1, release candidate #0

+1 Verified the followings: - checksum, signatures - source package can build - binary package can run - Sijie On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:34 PM Matteo Merli wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the version > 4.14.1, as follows: > [ ] +1, Approve the

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.14.0, release candidate #0

+1 (binding) All things below are good. * Signatures * Source package structure, and compile * Binary package * Running standalone bookie and client On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 9:43 AM Matteo Merli wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Checked: > * Signatures > * Source package structure, and comp

Re: Cutting BookKeeper 4.13.1 or 4.14.0 release?

+1 On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 2:22 AM Yunze Xu wrote: > Hello, > About 10 days ago I found a heap memory copy problem in Apache Pulsar, see > [1]. > It’s a problem of BK side because when `LedgerHandle#asyncAddEntry` > accepts a `CompositeByteBuf` or a wrapper, it will finally call > `ByteBuf#nioBuf

[ANNOUNCE] Introducing Apache Pulsar Hackathon 2021!!!

Hi, Pulsar and BookKeeper communities, The adoption of Apache Pulsar and BookKeeper is accelerating as organizations around the world pursue cloud-native technologies. To build on this momentum, we are excited to announce the first-ever Apache Pulsar Hackathon 2021, *taking place on May 6-7th*. Th

[ANNOUNCE] Pulsar Summit North America 2021 Call-for-speakers and Registration is now open

Dear Apache Pulsar community, We are excited to announce that Pulsar Summit North America 2021 will be hosted virtually on June 16th - 17th. Call-for-speakers and attendee registration are now open for the conference! Pulsar Summit is the conference dedicated to Apache Pulsar, and the messaging a

Re: Unbounded memory usage for WQ > AQ ?

herwise we have a data loss if we skip the entry and > consequently have a problem with the protocol. If anyone cares to explain > the deterministic check referred to, I'd appreciate. > Based on my understanding, Jack wants the behavior on recovering an entry does not have enough repli

Re: Unbounded memory usage for WQ > AQ ?

ries in the sealed ledger can always be read and can be read > >> consistently. > > > >> I am not sure it is a problem unless I misunderstand it. > > > > It is true that it doesn't violate any safety property, but it is a > strange > > check to me.

Re: Unbounded memory usage for WQ > AQ ?

lementation artefact rather than an > explicit protocol design choice. But not a huge deal. > It was discussed in the earlier days as a design choice for this protocol. If we want to make it deterministic, we might need to consider what is the performance penalty. > > Jack > > >

Re: Unbounded memory usage for WQ > AQ ?

Sorry for being late in this thread. If I understand this correctly, the main topic is about the "hole" when WQ > AQ. > This leaves a "hole" as the entry is now replicated only to 2 bookies, We do have one hole when ensemble change is enabled and WQ > AQ. That was a known behavior. But the hole

Re: [VOTE] Apache BookKeeper Release 4.12.1, release candidate #0

+1 (binding) - Source package looks good - Binary package looks good - The release tag is good - Sijie On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:43 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Thank you Amit, Matteo and Henry, > we need at least one more +1 from a PMC in order to validate the release > (assuming my own +1) >

Re: [VOTE] Apache BookKeeper 4.12.0 release candidate 0

+1 (binding) - Both source package and binaries are good. - Test compiling the source package. - Tags and license are good - Sijie On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:17 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > +1 (binding) > - Build sources on Mac, with JDK14 > - Tested the built sources, run a few smoke tests with

Re: Contributing Splunk changes back to OSS

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 3:09 AM Ivan Kelly wrote: > Hi folks, > > It's been about a year since Streamlio joined Splunk and since then > we've had a bit of forking with our BK branch. > It has gotten to a stage where it's starting to be a problem for us, > so we'd like to start to get things back

Re: Cutting Apache BookKeeper 4.12.0

at 5:18 AM Enrico Olivelli > wrote: > > > Il giorno mer 4 nov 2020 alle ore 22:17 Sijie Guo > ha > > scritto: > > > > > Okay. I will do the release. > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > I will report any showstopper as soon as possible.

Re: Cutting Apache BookKeeper 4.12.0

rent Pulsar master. > > I am happy that you do the release > > Please confirm that you are going to do it > > Enrico > > Il Mer 4 Nov 2020, 17:37 Sijie Guo ha scritto: > > > +1 > > > > If you need any help with the release, I can do the release this time

Re: Cutting Apache BookKeeper 4.12.0

+1 If you need any help with the release, I can do the release this time. - Sijie On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:05 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hello BookKeepers, > I would like to cut 4.12.0 > > There are still a few interesting pull requests pending review > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pu

Re: BookKeeper Board Report due by Wed Aug 12

Thank you, Enrico! I have just submitted the report. - Sijie On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 1:44 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Sijie, > this is my proposal of report to the board (sharing it on dev@ this way > everyone can know about this important activity on the lifecycle of the > project) > > ## Des

Re: Slack channel for HerdDB hosted on BK slack

+1 On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 1:34 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hi, > Can I create an #herddb channel on our BookKeeper slack space ? > > After my talk at PulsarSummit we started having a few new contacts on > herddb-dev mailing list, but sometimes slack is more efficient. > > HerdDB community is sti

Re: Announcing ApacheCon @Home 2020

Hi Enrico, I have reached out to Rich to create a track for pulsar/bookkeeper. If you have any talk ideas, please submit the talks and let me know your submissions. I will include that on the track. - Sijie On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:04 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hey Bookkeepers > This is a g

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.11.0, release candidate #0

+1 (binding) On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:18 PM Jia Zhai wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Environment: macOS 10.15.5 > > - verified packages checksum ( asc and sha good) > > - the source package build and test all run successfully. > > - in both binary package(server & all), 'bin/bookkeeper standalone' an

Re: Re-working the BookKeeper site

l Dom 14 Giu 2020, 02:26 Anup Ghatage ha scritto: >> >>> Hi Bookies, >>> >>> We've had quite a few issues reported recently about the site. >>> Some are about the fact that the site has dead links and some are about >>> the content. >>&

Re: Question on disableEnsembleChange

Hi JV, It unset the failed bookies and resend the write requests, no? - Sijie On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 11:05 PM Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri wrote: > I am looking at a feature to disableEnsembleChanges > If the disableEnsembleChangeFeature >

Announcing Pulsar Summit Virtual Conference 2020 | June 17-18

Hi all, Over the past few weeks, after having to reschedule Pulsar Summit San Francisco 2020, we have been working on delivering the event in an online format instead. Today, we are excited to announce the Pulsar Summit Virtual Conference, happening on June 17-18! Join the speakers from Splunk, V

Re: Board report draft for May 2020

Anup, thank you! I am going to send the report. - Sijie On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:27 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Good > > Sijie have you sent it? > > Enrico > > Il Mer 13 Mag 2020, 00:34 Anup Ghatage ha scritto: > >> Thank you for your comments Enrico, I've made the changes as you >> suggest

Re: Rollback of Apache Bookeeper

ie uses the configured disk format version. > > It is always able to read the old format, and it will write during regular > writes and during compaction only the format configured in bk_server.conf > > > > Enrico > > > > > > Regards, > > Subash Kunjupilla

Re: Release 4.11.0 and 4.10.0 "stable"

I think we can make 4.10.1 first? - Sijie On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 11:05 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Alessandro, > Thanks for pointing this out. > > From my point of view these items are to be checked: > - We have problems on Integration Tests (on GitHub Actions, > > https://github.com/apache/bo

Re: Rollback of Apache Bookeeper

+ users@ back to the discussion. Sorry for being late to the discussion here. When talking about "rollback" behavior, it usually involves two questions: 1) does wire protocol support rollback? 2) does data(metadata) format support rollback? For the first question, the bookkeeper provides very g

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New BookKeeper Committer: Rajan Dhabalia

Congratulations Rajan! Thank you for your contribution! - Sijie On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 12:24 PM Rajan Dhabalia wrote: > Thank you Enrico and other members for sharing the opportunity. > > Thanks, > Rajan > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:19 AM Enrico Olivelli > wrote: > > > The Apache BookKeeper

Re: Still problems with CI

We can port the pulsarbot approach to bookkeeper. So non-committers can use a similar bot command to trigger re-running tests. - Sijie On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 12:58 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hi, > We are still having troubles with CI. > Even trivial patches fail, due to GitHub Actions or due t

Re: GitHub actions checkout is failing

I think the checkout action is changed to v2. Added Yijie here. Since he helped fixing the issue in Pulsar, he can help fixing the issue in bookkeeper as well. Sijie On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 2:29 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hi guys, > it looks like GitHub ACtions sometimes fails to checkout Pul

Re: Troubles with GitHub Actions and Python client - integration tests

Yong, Can you help look into this? Thanks, Sijie On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:34 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hi, > integration tests started failing on GitHub Actions. > > see: > > https://pipelines.actions.githubusercontent.com/EMeCU0s3nV8mEzpqEGqbbDjtOUKCLJV4IPXg8mh4qtgdpzCGW6/_apis/pipelines/1/

[ANNOUNCE] Pulsar Summit San Francisco 2020 Call for Presentation extended!

You can find more detailed track descriptions and the form to submit a proposal on the Pulsar Summit website at --> https://pulsar-summit.org/call-for-presentations/ --> https://sessionize.com/pulsar-summit-san-francisco-2020/ As usual, accepted speakers get a free conference pass. Best reg

Re: Too many pending PRs

I thought we are waiting for migrating to Github Actions. Yong's vote is waiting for anther binding vote. Can you approve that? Thanks, Sijie On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:23 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hi Bookkeepers, > We have plenty of pending pull requests on github. > > We need to help contrib

BookKeeper Track at Pulsar Summit

Hi, We have the Call-For-Presentations (CFP) and pre-registration open for Pulsar Summit. Since Pulsar uses BookKeeper as the event storage, we have seen an increasing interest in BookKeeper and have created a dedicated track for BookKeeper. If you have any talk ideas about your BookKeeper usage o

Re: [VOTE] Migrate the Jenkins CI to Github Actions

+1 binding On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 6:50 PM Jia Zhai wrote: > +1 > > Best Regards. > > > Jia Zhai > > Beijing, China > > Mobile: +86 15810491983 > > > > > On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 12:48 AM Alessandro Luccaroni - Diennea < > alessandro.luccar...@diennea.com> wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > Al

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Pulsar 2.5.0 released

The Apache Pulsar team is proud to announce Apache Pulsar version 2.5.0. Pulsar is a highly scalable, low latency messaging platform running on commodity hardware. It provides simple pub-sub semantics over topics, guaranteed at-least-once delivery of messages, automatic cursor management for subsc

Re: Are we really using libthrift and httpclient ?

SGTM On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 9:16 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Any insight over this problem ? > > If no one objects I will update my patch in order to clean up that 'shade > plugin' stuff > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/2233 > > Please note that bookkeeper and distributed log 'shaded

Re: [VOTE] EOL BookKeeper release versions up to 4.7.x

+1 On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:08 AM Alessandro Luccaroni - Diennea < alessandro.luccar...@diennea.com> wrote: > Hi BookKeepers, > BookKeeper 4.6.2 was released in April 2018 > BookKeeper 4.7.3 was released in December 2018 > > Every system in the wild that I know off is using releases newer than

Re: [VOTE] Relax Time Based Release Plan to 6 months

+1 On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:08 AM Alessandro Luccaroni - Diennea < alessandro.luccar...@diennea.com> wrote: > Hi BookKeepers, > since early 2019 the rate of contribution have slowed down significantly, > this is a vote to relax the Time Based Release Plan from the actual "every > 3 months" to a

Re: Website update after 4.10, Time Based Release plan and EOL

Yes. Let's start a vote? Thanks, Sijie On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 3:41 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > I would like to EOL up to 4.7.x > > We also have a few CI jobs for 4.7 > It a total waste of resources > > Enrico > > Il mar 3 dic 2019, 18:29 Sijie Guo ha scritto

Re: Problems with Jenkins

I think it is worth considering moving CI to Github Actions. Jenkins has been very terrible :( - Sijie On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 9:01 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hi, > We have problems on node H30 on ASF Jenkins > > I have excluded that node manually from some of our precommit jobs thant > seems t

Re: BP-38 Publish Bookie Service Info on Metadata Service

Hi Enrico, Thank you for putting all these together. We are interested in this feature. I have made some comments in the proposal. PTAL. Thanks, Sijie On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:25 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hi, > any interest in this proposal ? > > It will open up the way to having more info

Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping Twitter modules

LGTM. +1 On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 10:25 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Thank you Dave > > can you please "Approve" the pull request ? > Unfortunately Travis has problems and the build fails, I have started > another thread to fix the problem > > Enrico > > Il giorno ven 3 gen 2020 alle ore 15:24 Davi

Re: [DISCUSS] drop -Dstream - Always build stream storage service

Enrico, LGTM. +1 - Sijie On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 10:49 PM David Rusek wrote: > Another option could be to create a Github bookkeeper org and host these as > separate projects under the same umbrella. I think this might be an option > for the future but I wanted to throw it out there. > > On Fri

Re: Audit Logging for BookieShell

+1 the proposal looks good to me. If there is no objections about this, you can submit the proposal to bk website, following the process here: http://bookkeeper.apache.org/community/bookkeeper_proposals/ Thanks, Sijie On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:11 PM Anup Ghatage wrote: > Hi Everyone!, > > I hav

Re: Missing BookKeeper tags on dockerhub

ub.com/apache/bookkeeper/tree/release-4.10.0-docker >> >> It seems that we changed something in 4.8.2 with this commit from @Ivan >> Kelly >> >> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/commit/5e9828b795d7ef82c17f72a6c9efb6d0e0b4c8d7 >> >> Enrico >> >> Il

Re: Website update after 4.10, Time Based Release plan and EOL

sandro > > > -----Messaggio originale- > > Da: Sijie Guo > > Inviato: martedì 3 dicembre 2019 08:19 > > A: Bookkeeper-Dev > > Oggetto: Re: Website update after 4.10, Time Based Release plan and EOL > > > > Yes. We can probably relax the release window

Re: Website update after 4.10, Time Based Release plan and EOL

Yes. We can probably relax the release window to be every 6 months. If the growth of development increases again, we can revert it back to every 3 months. Regarding EOL policy, we haven't really discussed how to proceed it. Most of the systems I know are already using newer versions than 4.7.0. I

Re: Enhancing getBookieInfo

I am not sure it is a good idea to expose the stats via a RPC endpoint. Because most of the stats collection systems (e.g. prometheus) are collecting stats via an http endpoints. I don't think we should duplicate the work that a stats library is good at. Other thoughts inline. On Sat, Nov 30, 20

Re: Missing BookKeeper tags on dockerhub

Enrico, It is docker autobuild. We don't manage this part. I would suggest filling an INFRA ticket to see what is the issue. - Sijie On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:59 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > @Sijie Guo @Ivan Kelly > Do you have any idea ? > > I can't remember if we h

Re: Deprecate legacy API ? Which steps ?

+1 for deprecating the legacy API. Sijie On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 3:23 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hi, > I think it is time to work in the direction of deprecating the "old" client > API in favour of the new client API. > > Blockers: > 1) Convert the documentation on the website to use only the

Re: Board report draft for November 2019

FYI. I just posted the report. Thanks Enrico for putting this together! - Sijie On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:42 PM Sijie Guo wrote: > Hi Enrico, > > Thank you for putting this together! Overall looks good to me. > > You can find the statistics here: > https://reporter

Re: Committed python client version directly to master

LGTM On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:50 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hi, > as part of the release procedure I was changing the version of the python > client manually to 4.11.0-SNAPSHOT > > I have pushed the change directly to the master branch > > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/commit/40f349cc

Re: Board report draft for November 2019

he ASF borad I am preparing > Any comment and correction is welcome from the community. > This time I used the wizard at > https://reporter.apache.org/wizard/?bookkeeper > > @Sijie Guo I can't find mailing list activity stats, > can you help me ? It seems that "report

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.10.0, release candidate #0

+1 (binding) - verified signatures, shasum - build the source - binary can run - tag is good - release note is good. On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 7:46 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hi everyone, > Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the version 4.10.0, > as follows: > [ ] +1, Approve

Re: Apache Bookkeeper Checksum Validation

Hi Karan, Thank you for your proposal. Can you also add your proposal as a BP to the BP list? You can check the BP process here: http://bookkeeper.apache.org/community/bookkeeper_proposals/ Thanks, Sijie On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 5:53 AM Karan Mehta wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I wrote up a docu

Re: Upgrading Netty?

If we are close to a release, I would suggest holding on upgrading the dependencies. We can upgrade in 4.11. Thanks, Sijie On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:58 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Ping > > Il ven 16 ago 2019, 19:03 Enrico Olivelli ha > scritto: > > > Hi all, > > Is it worth to upgrade Netty be

Re: Cutting 4.10 release soon

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:20 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hi folks, > as Charan merged new tests for the clusterwise ledger scrutiny I would like > to cut a new release and hopefully restart the timebased release schedule. > +1 > > The only problem I must report before starting the procedure is

Re: Time to think about 4.10.0 ?

+1 we should try to follow the time based release schedule. On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:08 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hi, > I feel we are no more following the time based release schedule. > > it is time to think about releasing 4.10.0 ? > > There is some ongoing work that it is worth to commit (

Re: Cookie for FaultDomain Info?

+1 from me. `Cookie` was designed for keeping the informations that is associated with a bookie (e.g. disk layouts, bookie id and etc). I think it is making sense to have `FaultZoneId` stored as part of the cookie. - Sijie On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 9:48 AM Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri wrote: > In th

Re: [DRAFT] BookKeeper Board Report of May

co Olivelli > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Thanks > > Enrico > > > > Il gio 9 mag 2019, 06:30 Matteo Merli ha > scritto: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Matteo Merli > > > > > > &

[DRAFT] BookKeeper Board Report of May

Hi all, Here is a draft for BookKeeper board report of May. Please take a look. If there is no objections, I will submit it today. --- ## Description: BookKeeper is a scalable, fault-tolerant, and low-latency storage service optimized for append-only workloads. It has been used as a funda

Re: Projects Can Apply Individually for Google Season of Docs

FYI. Jia has filed an application for BookKeeper. Once BookKeeper is accepted as the project for SoD, he will bring the discussion back to the dev mailing list. - Sijie On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 5:02 AM Sijie Guo wrote: > FYI. > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Sijie

Fwd: Projects Can Apply Individually for Google Season of Docs

FYI. -- Forwarded message - From: Sijie Guo Date: Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 1:58 PM Subject: Fwd: Projects Can Apply Individually for Google Season of Docs To: Dev FYI. Now projects can apply individually for Google Season of Docs. We should just apply this. - Sijie

Re: Tags, version numbers and docker

I am fine with it if there is someone pushing the process forward. - Sijie On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 4:12 AM Jia Zhai wrote: > +1 for ivan's idea > > Best Regards. > > > Jia Zhai > > Beijing, China > > Mobile: +86 15810491983 > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 6:55 PM Enrico Olivelli > wrote: > >

Re: Tags, version numbers and docker

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 2:44 AM Ivan Kelly wrote: > Hi folks, > > Looking at doing the final tasks for the 4.8.2 release and stuck on > the docker bit. It's not that I don't see what has been done before, > but more that what is there is so so wrong. > > Take 4.8.1 release for example. The tarbal

Re: Cutting 4.9.1

+1 On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 5:16 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hi guys, > I need to cut 4.9.1 because we are seeing very often this issue > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/commit/25c7506c0513351c533db643cb10c953d1e6d0b7 > > Please tag any issue you want to merge into 4.9 branch. > > I will s

Fwd: Google Season of Docs 2019

FYI -- Forwarded message - From: Kenneth Knowles Date: Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:05 AM Subject: Re: Google Season of Docs 2019 To: Cc: dev , , dev < d...@beam.apache.org>, , < d...@training.apache.org> That's a lot of dev lists on one thread. Adding a couple more... :-) Kenn On

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.8.2, release candidate #0

+1 (binding) - verified source & binary package - asc & sha512 are good - artifacts are good - tag is good On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 2:28 AM Ivan Kelly wrote: > Hi everyone, > Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the version > 4.8.2, as follows: > [ ] +1, Approve the release > [

Fwd: 4 Apache Events in 2019: DC Roadshow soon; next up Chicago, Las Vegas, and Berlin!

FYI. The CFP for ApacheCon North America is now open. -- Forwarded message - From: Rich Bowen Date: Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:00 PM Subject: 4 Apache Events in 2019: DC Roadshow soon; next up Chicago, Las Vegas, and Berlin! To: Dear Apache Enthusiast, (You’re receiving this bec

Re: DL LogReader.readNext blocked forever

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:37 PM Lothruin Mirwen wrote: > Hi BookKeepers! > > I have an issue with DL LogReader.readNext(false) [ie: blocking] > > Such call should "block until return a record if there are records in the > stream (aka catching up). Otherwise it would wait up to {@link > Distribute

Re: Community Meeting - 02/21/2019

-QXm6IeDkRsEzypAjNXgfK7Y/edit# Let me know if you have any comments or questions. Feel free to leave the comments at google doc directly as well. - Sijie On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 8:39 PM Sijie Guo wrote: > Hi all, > > We will be resuming our regular bookkeeper community meeting starting this > w

Community Meeting - 02/21/2019

Hi all, We will be resuming our regular bookkeeper community meeting starting this week. The meeting will be held at 8am PST on 02/21/2019. I am using a google doc for tracking the meeting notes. Please note the google doc is used for collaboration during the meeting process. All the meeting not

Re: Community Meetings 2019

at 3:18 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Il giorno dom 17 feb 2019, 01:06 Sijie Guo ha > scritto: > > > > Other proposal is to setup > > > two meetings in a month, one is convenient for US > > > and other is convenient for Asia/Europe. > > > > I think

Re: How to handle stale metadata?

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:22 AM Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri wrote: > Recently we ran into a situation where the LedgerMetadataListener never > returned/detected metadata change. Due to this reader had stale metadata > and tried to read from bookies that no longer have that ledger, hence > NoSuchLedg

Re: Community Meetings 2019

call > > in the night if it is not between 6-9PM PST. > > In the morning I am fine to take early calls even at 7 AM. I am just > > stating my availability, and the goal should be larger participation IMO. > > > > JV > > > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019

Re: Community Meetings 2019

I think it is very difficult to find a good time slot for US, Europe and Asia. I would propose followings: - keep the regular community meetings at 8AM PST and make sure all meeting notes are updated and shared via mailing lists. Release manager should drive the community meeting. - additionally,

Re: ExplicitLAC consolidation

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 6:09 AM Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri wrote: > Thanks for bringing this up. To start with, can we put all forms on LAC in > a doc? i.e we have more than one way to read and write LAC. > 1. What are the ways to send LAC to Bookies? > 2. What are the ways bookies store the LAC? >

Re: [DRAFT] BookKeeper Board report of Feb.

FYI. I have submitted the board report. Thanks Jia for drafting the report and all the reviewers reviewing the report. Great community work! - Sijie On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 8:13 AM Sijie Guo wrote: > Good job, Jia. +1 > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:11 PM Jia Zhai wrote: > >>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.10.0 Planning

sab 2 feb 2019, 01:08 Sijie Guo ha scritto: > > > Thanks, Enrico. > > > > I have sent out a PR to update our release schedule page. > > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/1932 > > > > - Sijie > > > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 3:30 PM Enrico O

Re: [DRAFT] BookKeeper Board report of Feb.

Good job, Jia. +1 On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:11 PM Jia Zhai wrote: > Hi all, > > Here is a draft for BookKeeper Board report of Feb. Please take a look. > > - > > > ## Description: > > > BookKeeper is a scalable, fault-tolerant, and low-latency storage > > service o

[ANNOUNCE] Apache BookKeeper 4.9.0 released

The Apache BookKeeper team is proud to announce Apache BookKeeper version 4.9.0. Apache BookKeeper is a scalable, fault-tolerant, and low-latency storage service optimized for real-time workloads. It has been used for a fundamental service to build reliable services. It is also the log segment sto

Re: [DISCUSS] Release 4.10.0 Planning

Thanks, Enrico. I have sent out a PR to update our release schedule page. https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/1932 - Sijie On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 3:30 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Il giorno dom 27 gen 2019, 06:00 Sijie Guo ha scritto: > > > Hi all, > > > > Sinc

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release 4.9.0, release candidate #1

Hi all, I am happy to announce the vote for 4.9.0 rc1 has passed with 5 +1 binding votes and 0 -1 votes. 5 +1 bindings are: Enrico Olivelli Ivan Kelly Jia Zhai Matteo Merli Sijie Guo I will do the remaining tasks for completing 4.9.0 release. Thanks, Sijie On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 12:38 PM

Re: [VOTE] Release 4.9.0, release candidate #1

Include my +1 here as well. - Sijie On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 12:38 PM Sijie Guo wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 4.9.0, > as follows: > [ ] +1, Approve the release > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide

[DISCUSS] Release 4.10.0 Planning

Hi all, Since we are in the progress of releasing 4.9.0, I think it is a good time to start the discussion of what we are going to do for 4.10.0. Here are a few list of tasks I have in my mind: - Complete a few ongoing BPs * BP-27: New BookKeeper CLI `bkctl`. * BP-36: Stats annotations * B

[VOTE] Release 4.9.0, release candidate #1

Hi everyone, Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 4.9.0, as follows: [ ] +1, Approve the release [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments) The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes: * Release notes [1] * The of

[Cancel] [VOTE] Release 4.9.0, release candidate #0

Cancel rc0. Will send out rc1 soon. - Sijie On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 6:27 PM Sijie Guo wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the version 0.4.0, > as follows: > [ ] +1, Approve the release > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (pleas

Re: EnsemblePlacementPolicy exposes third party API "Pair" from commons-lang3 in a public API

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 8:40 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Hi all, > while reviewing 4.9 release I found this problem around a change about > EnsemblePlacementPolicy > > this is the issue > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/1914 > > The problem is that in public API we should not use thir

[VOTE] Release 4.9.0, release candidate #0

proval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes. Thanks, Sijie Guo [1] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/1910 [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/bookkeeper-4.9.0-rc0/ [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebookkeeper-1037/ [4] https://github.com/ap

Re: Bookkeeper 4.9...

97 > > We can release 4.9 without such docs by if someone in the community has > some cycle it will be a great step forward for the adoption of this new > features > > Cheers > > > Enrico > > > > Il mar 15 gen 2019, 03:19 Sijie Guo ha scritto: > > > As

Re: Bookkeeper 4.9...

gt; > > Sijie, > > If you prefer I can take this. > > Most of the work is from you and Ivan > > > > No problem for me. > > Thank you > > Enrico > > > > Il gio 27 dic 2018, 10:53 Sijie Guo ha scritto: > >> > >> Since no one volunte

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >