Hi team,
For PIP 198: Standardize PR Naming Convention using GitHub Actions [1]
How to define [type] and [scope]? Do these abbreviations LGTY?
*[Guide] Pulsar Pull Request Naming Convention* [2] contains everything
about the definition. Feel free to check and comment!
~~
TL;DR
PR titl
Note that there are two clients, the user client, and the proxy client.
When the original authenticate data expires, the user client cannot send a
request to the proxy to find the broker URL. We haven't tests to cover this.
A simple diagram represents workflow:
[image: image.png]
Both connections
Hi team
Thanks for your feedback!
Here is the voting result:
Our existing convention (customized based on Angular) is chosen!
~~
Our existing convention votes:
5, +1: Yu, Alex, Yunze, Jun, Qiang,
1, +0: tison
Angular convention votes:
1, +1: tison
~~
I’ll close this discussion and
urfreespace merged PR #164:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/164
--
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.a
gurleen-gks commented on issue #463:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-manager/issues/463#issuecomment-1217196532
Any update on this?
--
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 s
+1 (binding)
Good proposal. My only comment is about the naming. Instead of calling it a
"preprocessing function" or "extra function", I'd propose calling it "decorator
function".
-Lari
On 2022/07/28 10:39:35 Christophe Bornet wrote:
> Hi, Pulsar community,
>
> I'd like to start a vote on PIP
Cool! I can't wait to give it a try.
Soby Chacko 于2022年8月16日 周二22:41写道：
> Apologies for the duplicate email. I missed adding a subject in my last
> email.
>
> Thank you.
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Soby Chacko
> Date: Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 10:39 AM
> Subject:
> To:
>
>
> H
Hi all,
Refreshing the authentication data comes from the client is important. We
have two types of authentication data, directly authentication data, and
original authentication data:
1. Directly authentication data
The client/proxy brings the authentication data directly connected to the
broker
Apologies for the duplicate email. I missed adding a subject in my last
email.
Thank you.
-- Forwarded message -
From: Soby Chacko
Date: Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 10:39 AM
Subject:
To:
Hi Pulsar community,
Cross posting this from Slack.
We are happy to announce a new incubating S
Good idea. The implementation should provide an appropriate exception to
prevent the client from reconnecting continuously if it reaches the
limitation. Do other modules also need this?
Michael Marshall 于2022年8月16日周二 13:52写道：
> Good idea, it makes sense to me to add this to the proxy.
>
> > BTW,
+1 (non binding)
Nicolò Boschi 于2022年8月16日周二 17:28写道：
> +1 (non binding)
>
> Thanks,
> Nicolò Boschi
>
>
> Il giorno mer 10 ago 2022 alle ore 01:34 Neng Lu ha
> scritto:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Not sure if this is too late or not, I replied in the discussion thread
> > about some thinking.
> > Whethe
It is a huge milestone, but a challenge for implementing pluggable metadata
storage. Will the plan go from providing pluggable metadata storage to
internalize the distributed coordination functionality of Pulsar itself
finally?
Lari Hotari 于2022年8月16日周二 11:17写道：
> Bumping up this thread.
>
> -La
+1(non-binding)
horizonzy 于2022年8月16日周二 16:21写道：
> Dear Community,
>
> I'd like to start a VOTE on "PIP-186: Introduce two phase deletion protocol
> based on system topic"
>
> The proposal can be read at [0] and the discussion thread is available at
> [1]
>
> Voting will stay open for at least 4
nodece commented on issue #59:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/issues/59#issuecomment-1216452240
Assuming that the opened event and the labeled event occur sequentially, if
opened event action is not completed, then starting the labeled event action,
the opened event is ca
tisonkun commented on issue #57:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/issues/57#issuecomment-1216428069
@nodece as I mentioned above, if we're assuming there're other projects
using it, we should publish a tag and remove it in master.
For example, we push a tag `v0.1.0` s
maxsxu commented on issue #59:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/issues/59#issuecomment-1216410587
> I noticed the following code. Why are different types distinguished? I
think all four types should be used the same way for labeling.
The different handling strategies
maxsxu commented on issue #58:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/issues/58#issuecomment-1216403487
The main reason for using composite instead of docker initially was the
speed of execution, as the latency to build and retrieve the container.
> I don't know why we use
nodece commented on issue #57:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/issues/57#issuecomment-1216394664
I don't suggest that you remove this code. Could we make a deprecated tag?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log o
+1
Enrico
Il giorno mar 16 ago 2022 alle ore 11:32 Nicolò Boschi
ha scritto:
>
> A big +1 for this!
>
> Nicolò Boschi
>
>
> Il giorno dom 14 ago 2022 alle ore 06:20 Qiang Huang <
> qiang.huang1...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > +1. It can help reduce a lot of useless duplication of test cases.
> >
nodece merged PR #56:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/56
--
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.ap
A big +1 for this!
Nicolò Boschi
Il giorno dom 14 ago 2022 alle ore 06:20 Qiang Huang <
qiang.huang1...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> +1. It can help reduce a lot of useless duplication of test cases.
>
> Michael Marshall 于2022年8月11日周四 09:58写道：
>
> > Great suggestion, +1.
> >
> > - Michael
> >
> >
+1 (non binding)
Thanks,
Nicolò Boschi
Il giorno mer 10 ago 2022 alle ore 01:34 Neng Lu ha
scritto:
> Hi,
>
> Not sure if this is too late or not, I replied in the discussion thread
> about some thinking.
> Whether we tweak the sink connector or we allow a flexible and general
> function creat
maxsxu opened a new pull request, #60:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/60
Fixes #57
--
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
maxsxu commented on issue #57:
URL:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/issues/57#issuecomment-1216312211
Yes, the legacy docbot should be removed. I'll send a PR later.
AFAIK, only the main pulsar repo uses the docbot.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Servic
tisonkun commented on PR #56:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-test-infra/pull/56#issuecomment-1216306868
@maxsxu @nodece thanks for your review! Could you help on merging this patch?
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on
Dear Community,
I'd like to start a VOTE on "PIP-186: Introduce two phase deletion protocol
based on system topic"
The proposal can be read at [0] and the discussion thread is available at
[1]
Voting will stay open for at least 48h.
[0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/16569
[1] https://
Thanks for Yunze's help for fixing rpm and deb packaging.
Regards
Jiwei Guo (Tboy)
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 11:02 PM Yunze Xu
wrote:
> I found the scripts to build rpm and deb packages are broken, see
>
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/Release-process#31-build-rpm-and-deb-packages
> .
>
-1
I am sorry but I don't think that this PIP brings some improvements.
I was out and I wasn't able to participate in the discussion.
The final proposal is to change the way the Producer creates batches but:
1) Messages will be still "batched" so the EntryFilter won't see
benefits (the filter cann
28 matches
Mail list logo
