+1
Haiting Jiang 于2022年8月24日周三 12:35写道：
> +1 (non)
>
> Thanks,
> Haiting
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:19 AM guo jiwei wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Jiwei Guo (Tboy)
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 1:01 AM Heesung Sohn
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 (non-binding)
> > >
> > >
tisonkun commented on issue #172:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/issues/172#issuecomment-1225201754
Weird. This page should be:
* https://pulsar.apache.org/docs/next/develop-binary-protocol, or
* https://pulsar.apache.org/docs/next/developing-binary-protocol
tisonkun opened a new issue, #172:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/issues/172
Reference https://pulsar.apache.org/docs/develop-binary-protocol/.
cc @urfreespace
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to
+1 (non)
Thanks,
Haiting
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:19 AM guo jiwei wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
>
> Regards
> Jiwei Guo (Tboy)
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 1:01 AM Heesung Sohn
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > Heesung
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:00 AM Anon Hxy wrote:
> > >
> > >
nkurihar closed issue #218: Issue with node pre gyp - accessing wrong lib URL
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-client-node/issues/218
--
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
Hi All,
I'd like to add some more metrics to the broker entry cache. In order
to do so, I needed to update RangeCache#clear and
RangeCache#evictLEntriesBeforeTimestamp so they return Pair instead of long. This is technically a breaking change, but
since it is an internal broker class, it would
Sherlock113 opened a new pull request, #171:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/171
Update the banner to call for proposals for Pulsar Summit Asia 2022.
Preview:
![Screen Shot 2022-08-24 at 10 23
+1 (binding)
Regards
Jiwei Guo (Tboy)
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 1:01 AM Heesung Sohn
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Heesung
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:00 AM Anon Hxy wrote:
> >
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Xiaoyu Hou
> >
> > lordcheng10 <1572139...@qq.com.invalid> 于2022年8月23日周二
Hi all,
We have merged all the blocker patches, and I decide to start the
release.
The release note[1] for 2.11.0 is available for review, please help
review it and feel free to leave comments.
[1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/167
Regards
Jiwei Guo (Tboy)
On Wed, Aug 17,
Hi Rajan,
> I didn't understand this part. You want one to create a PR before
submitting a proposal? That's clearly not a good idea because if the PIP
approach will change then the entire development effort will be wasted and
that's the whole purpose of PIP. I guess creating PIP into an issue and
Hi, Pulsar dev community,
This vote has been open for 23 days, and we are closing this vote today as
this PIP received three binding +1s.
We are moving forward and starting implementation -- there will be a series
of PRs and sub-PIPs(if further design discussions are required).
Thank you,
GitHub user rillo-carrillo created a discussion: Geo Replication using Proxy
Environment:
2 Kubernetes Environments
2 Pulsar Clusters v 2.10.0
Have added on each cluster another cluster to replicate messages with the next
command:
`pulsar-admin clusters create --cluster-config-file
Hi,
>>> I think we can move all the PIPs to the codebase and the new proposal
and proposal without any reviews should happen with a PR first. So that we
can review and comment easily.
I didn't understand this part. You want one to create a PR before
submitting a proposal? That's clearly not a
+1 (non-binding)
Heesung
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:00 AM Anon Hxy wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Thanks,
> Xiaoyu Hou
>
> lordcheng10 <1572139...@qq.com.invalid> 于2022年8月23日周二 15:10写道：
>
> > Hi Pulsar Community, I would like to start a VOTE on "Support split bundle
> > by flow or
+1 (non-binding)
Thanks,
Xiaoyu Hou
lordcheng10 <1572139...@qq.com.invalid> 于2022年8月23日周二 15:10写道：
> Hi Pulsar Community, I would like to start a VOTE on "Support split bundle
> by flow or qps."(PIP-169)
> Here is the design detail: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/16782
>
>
> and the
+1
Penghui
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 3:10 PM lordcheng10 <1572139...@qq.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Hi Pulsar Community, I would like to start a VOTE on "Support split bundle
> by flow or qps."(PIP-169)
> Here is the design detail: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/16782
>
>
> and the discussion
Thanks for the explanation
LGTM
Thanks,
Penghui
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:41 PM Dave Fisher wrote:
> While not a comment about this proposal I have a comment another split
> bundle concept.
>
> Manually split out a topic into its own bundle.
>
> Say a bundle is 0x to 0x0200 with 5
+1
And, I have added the release/2.10.2 label, Lan Liang.
Thanks,
Penghui
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:02 PM Lan Liang wrote:
> Hi,Haiting:
>
>Thanks for your work of release. Could you help to release PR-16309
> [0] to 2.10.2, It resolved pulsar can not working with etcd cluster.
>
>
While not a comment about this proposal I have a comment another split bundle
concept.
Manually split out a topic into its own bundle.
Say a bundle is 0x to 0x0200 with 5 topics.
t1 at 0x0010
t2 at 0x0030
t3 at 0x0110
t4 at 0x0123
t5 at 0x01AE
Let’s split out
> Should we track the status of PIPs as a project?
> Also we have old PIPs that have been abandoned or that never completed
VOTEs (there was one for pulsarctl that I would -1 if it were brought back.)
Yes, good point. We can maintain a Github Project to track all the
proposals.
Thanks,
Penghui
> On Aug 18, 2022, at 8:27 AM, PengHui Li wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Currently, the new proposal will be added to the issue list and then shared
> link in the email
> to request the proposal review. It's really hard to review a long proposal
> if you want to comment
> in detail.
>
> Here is an
Hi,Haiting:
Thanks for your work of release. Could you help to release PR-16309 [0] to
2.10.2, It resolved pulsar can not working with etcd cluster.
Some users are wondering about this part [1].
[0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/16309
[1]
GitHub user liangyuanpeng edited a comment on the discussion: I encountered a
port error when using pulsar to integrate etcd
[This PR](https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/16309) had resolve pulsar
working with etcd cluster and seems like have not any release version of
pulsar include it.
GitHub user liangyuanpeng added a comment to the discussion: I encountered a
port error when using pulsar to integrate etcd
This PR had resolve pulsar working with etcd cluster and seems like have not
any release version of pulsar include it. and i have build a version of pulsar
from
If page urls change then we should also add http redirect rules to help users
who bookmarked these docs.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 23, 2022, at 5:53 AM, Yu wrote:
>
> Hi team,
>
> Now is 3 working days after the initial discussion
>
> We'll start replacing brodocs with docsify for docs
+1.
> Before creating a proposal, we should have a discussion first on the
mailing list, just get feedback on the motivation.
I think it's a good idea to separate the motivation and formal proposal for
complicated PIPs.
So that we can avoid spending too much effort if the community is not
GitHub user liangyuanpeng added a comment to the discussion: I encountered a
port error when using pulsar to integrate etcd
What's your pulsar version?
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/17240#discussioncomment-3457256
This is an automatically sent email for
GitHub user abcMH1966 created a discussion: I encountered a port error when
using pulsar to integrate etcd
When I execute the following command:
./bin/pulsar initialize-cluster-metadata \
-c pulsar-cluster \
-md etcd:node01:2379,node02:2379,node03:2379 \
-cms
Hello, Pulsar community:
I'd like to propose to release Apache Pulsar 2.10.2
Currently, we have 189 commits [0] labeled with `release/2.10.2`,
And 39 of them are not cherry-picked yet [1].
And there are 39 open PRs [2], I will follow them to make sure that
the important fixes could be
SignorMercurio commented on PR #169:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/169#issuecomment-1224081761
@urfreespace I tested the commands in the scripts manually, which works fine
now. Not sure if `build-site.sh` works fine in Actions, can we temporary modify
the workflow to run
+1 (binding)
- Start the standalone service
- Publish and consume messages
- Run the Cassandra connector
- Validate the stateful function
Thanks,
Penghui
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 9:57 AM guo jiwei wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> - Checked checksums and signatures
> - Checked license headers using
Hi team,
Now is 3 working days after the initial discussion
We'll start replacing brodocs with docsify for docs since there is no
objection or technical suggestions.
Yu, signormercurio, urfreespace
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 5:09 PM Yu wrote:
> Thanks Dave!
>
> > How is this search organized on
GitHub user Nintorac added a comment to the discussion: Presto connector schema
issue
Thanks, can't find anything, container logs show nothing after loading
connectors. Also tried setting `/usr/lib/presto/etc/log.properties` with
`com.facebook.presto=DEBUG`
nothing in `/data/var/` has
GitHub user codelipenghui added a comment to the discussion: Presto connector
schema issue
@Nintorac Could you please share the logs of the presto? I think there are some
error logs which can help us to understand the problem
GitHub link:
Bump
Penghui
On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 11:27 PM PengHui Li wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Currently, the new proposal will be added to the issue list and then
> shared link in the email
> to request the proposal review. It's really hard to review a long proposal
> if you want to comment
> in detail.
>
>
+1
Penghui
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 6:04 PM Yu wrote:
> Hi team,
>
> Many thanks for your feedback! We've adjusted the convention based on your
> suggestions!
>
> Below is a brief summary of what we have reached a consensus on:
>
>
>
> 1. Convention
>
> Continue to follow our
Hi team,
Many thanks for your feedback! We've adjusted the convention based on your
suggestions!
Below is a brief summary of what we have reached a consensus on:
1. Convention
Continue to follow our existing convention (it's customized on Agular) [1]
2.
Hi Jiuming, Yunze, tison,
Thanks for your vote!
Hi tison,
> "packaging logics"
> For example, build the docker image, build & publish shell scripts.
If you refer to these changes, they belong to [build] scope.
Yu and Zixuan
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 1:25 PM tison wrote:
> Hi
"It's a good idea to improve the bundle split for the case that the traffic
of the topic doesn't change drastically
Otherwise, we should not use this policy. or can we use it for all cases?"
1.It is suitable for scenarios where topic traffic is relatively stable. In
addition, we can also adjust
It's a good idea to improve the bundle split for the case that the traffic
of the topic doesn't change drastically
Otherwise, we should not use this policy. or can we use it for all cases?
1.It is suitable for scenarios where topic traffic is relatively stable. In
addition, we can also adjust
GitHub user Nintorac created a discussion: Presto connector schema issue
Hey :)
I am trying to query my datastream and I get the following
```
presto> select * from pulsar."public/default"."avro-schema-topic" limit 10;
Query 20220823_084000_00014_2f95a failed: Failed to get pulsar topic
Hi, Pulsar community,
As you may notice, the Client Feature Matrix [0] has been linked on the Pulsar
doc site [1] for quite a while, providing an overview of feature supportability
on language-specific clients. As the outcome of PIP-108, it has addressed the
initial community request [2] for
It's a good idea to improve the bundle split for the case that the traffic
of the topic doesn't change drastically
Otherwise, we should not use this policy. or can we use it for all cases?
I think It should be documented in the proposal.
I have some questions
- do we need to consider the
Hi Pulsar Community, I would like to start a VOTE on "Support split bundle by
flow or qps."(PIP-169)
Here is the design detail: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/16782
and the discussion thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread/cshyt10fwcjjxs93g8yf0svgwcgnshmg
Thanks,
lordcheng10
Hi Pulsar Community, I would like to start a VOTE on "Support split bundle by
flow or qps."(PIP-169)
Here is the design
detailhttps://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/16782;
and the discussion
threadhttps://lists.apache.org/thread/cshyt10fwcjjxs93g8yf0svgwcgnshmg;
Thanks,
lordcheng10
45 matches
Mail list logo
