Re: [DISCUSS] Release API docs only for major release (minor version bump)

+1 Thanks, Haiting On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 5:37 PM Nicolò Boschi wrote: > > +1 > This is the same we do in BookKeeper but for the docs in general (not only > API) but the concept is the same. > In BookKeeper we only have one doc version per minor. > https://bookkeeper.apache.org/releases > If a

Re: [DISCUSS] Enable branch-2.9 force push and frozen branch-2.9

+3 binding(Penghui Li, JiWei guo, Hang Chen) +2 nonbing(Zike Yang, Yubiao Feng), so I will close this discussion and merge https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18623. thanks for your votes. Thanks, bo 丛搏 于2022年11月25日周五 18:55写道： > > > > > One thing I'd like to make clear: this is a temporary sol

Re: [DISCUSS] Enable branch-2.9 force push and frozen branch-2.9

> > One thing I'd like to make clear: this is a temporary solution, and we'll > re-enable branch protection after the actions are performed (or relax to > 2.9.4 released). yes, after this pr: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/18623 merged and reset branch-2.9 to commit 5ed247de3a, I will push

Re: [DISCUSS] Enable branch-2.9 force push and frozen branch-2.9

One thing I'd like to make clear: this is a temporary solution, and we'll re-enable branch protection after the actions are performed (or relax to 2.9.4 released). If it's the case, please file an issue and assign yourself to revert on time :) On 2022/11/25 04:28:45 丛搏 wrote: > Hi, pulsar commu

Re: [DISCUSS] Release API docs only for major release (minor version bump)

+1 This is the same we do in BookKeeper but for the docs in general (not only API) but the concept is the same. In BookKeeper we only have one doc version per minor. https://bookkeeper.apache.org/releases If a patch introduces a change for some reason (likely security reasons) the rule is to explic

Re: [DISCUSS] Enable branch-2.9 force push and frozen branch-2.9

+1 Thanks Zike Yang On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 2:22 PM Hang Chen wrote: > > +1 for re-cherry-picking the commits. > > Thanks, > Hang > > Yubiao Feng 于2022年11月25日周五 13:58写道： > > > > +1 for re-cherry-pick the commits. > > > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 12:29 PM 丛搏 wrote: > > > > > Hi, pulsar community

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Client C++ Release 3.1.0 Candidate 1

+1 * verify checksum and signatures * build from source (Ubuntu 20.04 x86_64) * verify artifacts on Windows (`pulsar.dll` and `pulsarWithDeps.a` for both x86 and x64 architectures) * verify rpm, deb, apk packages in x86_64 architecture (`libpulsar.so` and `libpulsar.a`) In addition, I created a r

Re: Acknowledge contributors for each release

Thanks for your feedback! To Yu: 1. the top 10 contributors No. I tend not to rank the contributors. We simply acknowledge all contributors to make the release happen. If you'd like to rank the contributors, what's the standard? PR numbers? Patch importance? I believe ranking contributors by PR

Re: [DISCUSS] Release API docs only for major release (minor version bump)

+1. We should never introduce API changes in minor releases. Though there were some exceptional cases where new APIs were added into C++ clients as a catch-up, which might be caused by the slowness of a major release. But we should avoid it because the C++ clients are separated now. Thanks, Yunze

Re: [Discuss] Deprecate Index-based Publisher Stat Aggregation in Topics Partitioned-Stats

Hi Nozomi, I didn't look into the proposal at the moment. But I noticed the producer name generation logic you mentioned here. At least in C++ clients, the producer name can only be set from the CommandProducer response. i.e. PIP-79 is not catched up in C++ clients. Thanks, Yunze On Fri, Nov 25,

[DISCUSS] Release API docs only for major release (minor version bump)

Hi, I'm working on the API docs generator tools and noticed that we're inconsistently releasing API docs for Python client, C++ client, Java client, admin and functions. Basically, we release API docs _sometimes_ for minor release (patch version bump), and display API docs with -SNAPSHOT suffix f