Hi Zike,
Thanks for your feedback!
Zike Yang 于2022年3月15日周二 14:20写道：
> Hi Zixuan,
>
> This proposal has 3 (+1) bindings and 0 (-1) and has stayed open for
> at least 48 hours. You can close this vote now and the proposal has
> been accepted.
>
> Thanks,
> Zike Yang
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at
Thanks for Roc, sounds good.
Roc Marshal 于2022年3月18日周五 10:04写道：
>
>
>
> Thank you Zixuan, Enrico for your insights.
>
>
> It is necessary to note that assertj is only the API of assertion It is
> equivalent to assertions in JUnit and TestNG, not a testing framework.
> Therefore, it is only
Ok, I have updated the proposal number to 149.
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/14365.
Regards
Jiwei Guo (Tboy)
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 8:53 PM PengHui Li wrote:
> PIP-143 is this one https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13761
>
> Please peek a new proposal number
>
> Penghui
>
> On
Thank you Zixuan, Enrico for your insights.
It is necessary to note that assertj is only the API of assertion It is
equivalent to assertions in JUnit and TestNG, not a testing framework.
Therefore, it is only equivalent to the role of JUnit or TestNG assertion API.
And assertj assertions
This proposal only considers using non-persistent topics to sync bundle load
data, the historical load data will still write into zookeeper, I think we can
draft another proposal for persistent historical load data to the system topic.
Thanks,
Kai
On Mar 18, 2022, 02:54 +0800, Joe F , wrote:
>
Matt-Esch commented on pull request #200:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-node/pull/200#issuecomment-1071795804
FYI the process seems to segfault at the very end of the test run, which is
unusual. I've added a segfault handler to try to capture segfaults in tests and
print
Hi Pulsar Community,
Here are the meeting notes from today's community meeting.
If you are interested in joining our community meeting (even if just
for a few minutes to introduce yourself and meet some other
contributors), we'd love to have you! The event details are on our
"events" page:
briedel opened a new issue #246:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/issues/246
ClusterRoles for Pulsar Functions, Promotheus, etc. This is related to issue
#173
`rbac.limit_to_namespace: true`
only limits required pulsar pieces (broker, bookie, etc.) to the
Hi,
I would like to start VOTE on PIP-136:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13728
Thanks,
Rajan
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 4:58 PM Rajan Dhabalia wrote:
>
> >> How do we designate the host broker? Is it manual? How does it work
> when the host broker is removed from the cluster?
> No, it
To clarify, historical profile that is persisted in ZK
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 11:54 AM Joe F wrote:
> IIRC, there is a historical load profile for topic that feeds into
> decisions by the load balancer.
>
> What happens during a cluster startup, with this new proposal?
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar
IIRC, there is a historical load profile for topic that feeds into
decisions by the load balancer.
What happens during a cluster startup, with this new proposal?
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 7:50 AM PengHui Li wrote:
> > But which brokers will own that topic ?
> in a Pulsar cluster with a high
> But which brokers will own that topic ?
in a Pulsar cluster with a high level of isolation of tenants, we must
ensure that:
- at least one broker is allowed to own the topic
- brokers dedicated to tenants do not own the topic
With the current approach the data in on zookeeper, and this is shared
Il giorno gio 17 mar 2022 alle ore 02:42 PengHui Li
ha scritto:
>
> > we do not know
> anything about the availability of the owner of the topic.
>
> If the owner broker is not available, other brokers will take over.
>
> > We could make it simpler and when a broker wants to push its data, it
>
haorenfsa closed issue #245:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/issues/245
--
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:
Thanks Roc,
Your idea sounds great, the AssertJ is powerful, but I don't recommend
going this path.
1. There are already two test frameworks TestNG and Junit in Pulsar now, we
should only use a test framework - TestNG, there is still some work left to
clean up JUnit:
haorenfsa opened a new issue #245:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-helm-chart/issues/245
Hey guys, it's your friends from the
[milvus](https://github.com/milvus-io/milvus) community. We're using pulsar as
our backbone msg stream.
**Is your feature request related to a
Thank you Yu,
I left some feedback on the gdoc
Overall it is a great proposal.
It will probably be hard to enforce, we will have to spend time and
fix the title when we see the wrong title.
but I totally agree with you, this effort will help the community in
understand better what we are doing
Roc,
Thanks for sharing your proposal.
Changing the test framework will introduce lots of changes and it will
make it harder to share patches between branches.
In Pulsar we are currently maintaining 5 release lines (2.7, 2.8, 2.9,
2.10 and master-2.11).
Maybe using AssertJ for new tests can be a
+1
managedLedgerCacheEvictionIntervalMs is easier to understand.
> What's more, the evict task is executed once, and then sleep waitTimeMillis
> before the next round, we can use a ScheduledExecutorService to replace it.
+1, Currently it works like scheduleAtFixDelay, but I think we may need
19 matches
Mail list logo
