Most of you agree to use the previous branch-2.11 for release, I will start
the release this week.
Regards
Jiwei Guo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 4:23 AM Nicolò Boschi wrote:
> My two cents,
>
> I think we should go forward with the current branch. All the cherry picks
> were done in a thoughtful w
dependabot[bot] commented on PR #7:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-presto/pull/7#issuecomment-1316165571
OK, I won't notify you again about this release, but will get in touch when
a new version is available. If you'd rather skip all updates until the next
major or minor version, let
tisonkun closed pull request #7: Bump jackson-databind from 2.11.1 to 2.12.7.1
in /presto-distribution
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-presto/pull/7
--
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 g
dependabot[bot] closed pull request #6: Bump jackson-databind from 2.11.1 to
2.13.4.1 in /presto-distribution
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-presto/pull/6
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL abo
dependabot[bot] commented on PR #6:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-presto/pull/6#issuecomment-1316162043
Superseded by #7.
--
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 comm
dependabot[bot] opened a new pull request, #7:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-presto/pull/7
Bumps [jackson-databind](https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson) from 2.11.1
to 2.12.7.1.
Commits
See full diff in https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson/commits";>compare view
Dear Pulsar Community,
Please review and vote on this PIP.
PIP link: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18215
Thank you,
-Heesung
Congrats!
Nicolò
Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle 13:30 Haiting Jiang
ha scritto:
> Congrats!
>
> Best,
> Haiting
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 4:58 PM Zixuan Liu wrote:
> >
> > Congrats! Lin
> >
> > Best,
> > Zixuan
> >
> > Enrico Olivelli 于2022年11月14日周一 15:06写道：
> >
> > > Congratulations
> > >
My two cents,
I think we should go forward with the current branch. All the cherry picks
were done in a thoughtful way.
My assumption is that if we go down recutting the branch from the current
master, it will take at least a couple of weeks to get it in a stable
condition. Other than that, there
Introducing new system concepts as code change PR is really not the way to
go about making these changes. The semantics and use case discussion
should come first, so that they can be discussed and the implications
understood. It's not a good experience to put this out there without
providing a m
Hi Enrico,
It's okay for me to cut the current master as 2.11.0, but since many new PRs
were merged recently, I'm afraid some regressions might be introduced. I found
some flaky tests (like [1]) recently, not sure whether they are caused
by bugs. And
there is also a PR [2] that tries to solve a bu
GitHub user crossoverJie added a comment to the discussion: Why
PersistentTopicInternalStats don't provide getter/setter method?
Thank you for your answer, I think I can help fix this.
GitHub link:
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/18481#discussioncomment-4149098
This is an a
GitHub user michaeljmarshall added a comment to the discussion: Why
PersistentTopicInternalStats don't provide getter/setter method?
Seems like an oversight to me. There could definitely be getter methods for the
fields in those classes, but I don't think we need setter methods. Similarly,
`o
> 3.0.0 means "breaking changes"
PIP 175 [0] proposes a different meaning to 3.0.0. The proposed
meaning is that each major release is an LTS version. Here is the
exact wording:
> The major version bump will not carry any special meaning in terms of
> "big features" included in the release or bre
Il giorno mar 15 nov 2022 alle ore 15:26 Hang Chen
ha scritto:
>
> If we drop the current branch-2.11 and release based on the master,
> why not release 3.0.0 based on the master branch directly according to
> the new release plan [1].
3.0.0 means "breaking changes"
current master is 100% compati
If we drop the current branch-2.11 and release based on the master,
why not release 3.0.0 based on the master branch directly according to
the new release plan [1].
If we cut the master branch and release Pulsar 2.11.0, we will wait at
least three months before we cut 3.0.0.
[1] https://github.c
Congrats!
Best,
Haiting
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 4:58 PM Zixuan Liu wrote:
>
> Congrats! Lin
>
> Best,
> Zixuan
>
> Enrico Olivelli 于2022年11月14日周一 15:06写道：
>
> > Congratulations
> >
> > Enrico
> >
> > Il Lun 14 Nov 2022, 07:30 Qiang Huang ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > > Congratulations!
> > >
> > > h
Hi,
I am exploring the Key_Shared feature of Apache Pulsar using the Pulsar
2.10.1 client.
*UseCase Perspective:*
I am simulating an everyday use case in Kubernetes-based deployments.
when we deploy new code to the pod's consumers restart, the first consumer
that starts is picking all the back
18 matches
Mail list logo
