Re: [Discuss] Suggestion for a "clear" parameter in Pulsar-admin to simplify tenant and namespace cleanup

Hello Xiangying, Thank you for the summary . I would like to understand if this feature would delete the regex based topics or namespaces from all available clusters in the global zookeeper, or only from the local cluster where this command is run. Regards On Tue, Apr 25, 2023, 8:52 AM

Re: [Discuss] Suggestion for a "clear" parameter in Pulsar-admin to simplify tenant and namespace cleanup

Hi Girish, Thank you for raising concerns about the proposed feature. I would like to address the points you mentioned in your email. 1. I understand that one of your concerns is whether the proposed regex-based deletion feature would provide significant advantages over using a simple one-liner

[DISCUSS] PIP-254: Support for Idempotent Commit and Abort.

Hello! I made a PIP to discuss: PIP-254: Support for Idempotent Commit and Abort. · Issue #19744 · apache/pulsar (github.com) Thanks, Thetumbled.

Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus

Perhaps we can document any known issues in the release notes with an indication of when they will be patched? That might help users determine whether to upgrade now or to wait for the next patch release. Thanks, Michael On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:06 AM PengHui Li wrote: > > Yes, I just want to

Re: Re:Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-255: Assign topic partitions to bundle by round robin

This proposal is easier to understand than before. Overall LGTM. But I think these `onBundleXXX` methods could be default so that we can implement it with a simple lambda. Thanks, Yunze On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 10:22 AM Lin Lin wrote: > > We make this configuration item to be a dynamic

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-261: Restructure Getting Started section

So far I got 2 PMC members reviewing it. I'd appreciate it if one more person could review it: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19912 Thanks! On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 5:16 PM Asaf Mesika wrote: > I've updated the PIP based on all comments made directly in the GitHub > issue. > > Please

Re: [DISCUSS] PIP-261: Restructure Getting Started section

I've updated the PIP based on all comments made directly in the GitHub issue. Please take a look. Thanks! On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 7:39 AM Yu wrote: > Hi Asaf, > > Thanks for your great initiative! > > To make the learning path accurate for all roles (beginners, developers, > operators) and

Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus

Yes, I just want to understand the process here and try to make it more clear. We'd better set a timeline for new feature fixes in the next feature release. After the timeline, we only accept fixes for security issues and regressions. Thanks, Penghui On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:57 PM Christophe

Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus

Yes I agree that we should not ship buggy features. But also we decided on a time-based release plan so I'd be in favor of delaying features that are not fully tested to the next release. Hiding them behind feature flags if needed. If we do frequent, regular releases, this should not be an issue

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Pulsar C++ Client 3.2.0

+1 Enrico Il Lun 24 Apr 2023, 11:28 Zike Yang ha scritto: > +1 > > Thanks, > Zike Yang > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 12:42 PM Yunze Xu > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I would like to propose releasing the Pulsar C++ Client 3.2.0. > > > > It has been over 2 months since the last release

Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus

Il Lun 24 Apr 2023, 12:35 PengHui Li ha scritto: > Can we cherry-pick fixes for the new features that were introduced to > 3.0.0? > We do lots of chaos testing, stress testing for new delayed messages, and > load balancer > before the 3.0.0 release. Is it reasonable to have the fixes without >

Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus

Can we cherry-pick fixes for the new features that were introduced to 3.0.0? We do lots of chaos testing, stress testing for new delayed messages, and load balancer before the 3.0.0 release. Is it reasonable to have the fixes without releasing buggy features? Or the testing should be completed

Re: [Discuss] Suggestion for a "clear" parameter in Pulsar-admin to simplify tenant and namespace cleanup

Hello Yubiao, As per my understanding, this feature suggestion is intended to delete the topics from all replicated clusters under the namespace. Thus, the example you are providing may not be a good fit for this? Xiangying, please clarify if my understanding is incorrect. On Mon, Apr 24, 2023

Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus

Hi Zike, I just reverted the commits of PIP-195 (minutes before your mail ) except for https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e Maybe we should keep that one since it will be a breaking change if we do it later. Le lun. 24 avr. 2023 à 11:52, Zike Yang a

Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus

We can revert it, thanks Il giorno lun 24 apr 2023 alle 11:52 Zike Yang ha scritto: > Hi, all > > Based on the above discussion, I will revert all these commits. They > are all related to the improvement of the PIP-195: > * >

Re: [Discuss] Suggestion for a "clear" parameter in Pulsar-admin to simplify tenant and namespace cleanup

Hi Girish Sharma > What additional advantage would one get by using that approach > rather than simply using a one liner script to just call delete > topic for each of those topics if the list of topics is known. If users enabled `Geo-Replication` on a namespace in mistake(expected only to

Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus

Hi, all Based on the above discussion, I will revert all these commits. They are all related to the improvement of the PIP-195: * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e248e14473142765db1df324c20a081a2422980e * https://github.com/apache/pulsar/commit/e1d63990644700bf61b3d7af1ef6d4d62145c2bb *

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Pulsar C++ Client 3.2.0

+1 Thanks, Zike Yang On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 12:42 PM Yunze Xu wrote: > > Hi all, > > I would like to propose releasing the Pulsar C++ Client 3.2.0. > > It has been over 2 months since the last release (3.1.2). There have > been many new features and bug fixes since then. It's time to release >

Re: [NOTICE] Please don't cherry-pick commits to branch-3.0 without consensus

Hi, Michael Thanks for your explanation. I'm +1 for keeping these commits. Thanks, Zike Yang On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 12:47 AM Michael Marshall wrote: > > > So to respect the code freeze, I propose to revert all those commits except: > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19849 > >