[GitHub] [pulsar] github-actions[bot] commented on issue #18932: [Client] Drop jcommander dependency in Pulsar java client
github-actions[bot] commented on issue #18932: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/18932#issuecomment-1529243020 The issue had no activity for 30 days, mark with Stale label. -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [pulsar] github-actions[bot] commented on issue #19908: Flaky-test: ExtensibleLoadManagerImplTest.testSplitBundleAdminAPI
github-actions[bot] commented on issue #19908: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19908#issuecomment-1529242304 The issue had no activity for 30 days, mark with Stale label. -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [pulsar] github-actions[bot] commented on issue #19984: Flaky-test: org.apache.pulsar.broker.loadbalance.extensions.ExtensibleLoadManagerImplTest.stateCheck
github-actions[bot] commented on issue #19984: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/19984#issuecomment-1529242263 The issue had no activity for 30 days, mark with Stale label. -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [pulsar-site] Sherlock113 commented on pull request #548: [BLOG][WIP]Add pulsar 3.0 blog post
Sherlock113 commented on PR #548: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/548#issuecomment-1529180617 Please do not merge this pr for now. The doc link in this post is unavailable right now. Needs doc website update. -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [pulsar-site] Sherlock113 commented on pull request #548: [BLOG][WIP]Add pulsar 3.0 blog post
Sherlock113 commented on PR #548: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/548#issuecomment-1529179085 Previews: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/65327072/235382709-18676be3-ed8b-425a-befa-a3de31313085.png;> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/65327072/235382711-d872198d-2d53-4c89-9a1f-e84aecb532ff.png;> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/65327072/235382713-d1c0346f-6647-4519-947c-56507fd67392.png;> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/65327072/235382715-a963d9ee-f561-485e-8047-a6c472b439aa.png;> -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [pulsar] 1Jack2 opened a new pull request, #20210: [fix][broker] Fix Return value of getPartitionedStats doesn't contain subscription type
1Jack2 opened a new pull request, #20210: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20210 Fixes #19970 ### Motivation Fix the return value of getPartitionedStats doesn't contain subscription type ### Modifications handle `type` field in `SubscriptionStatsImpl#add` and `SubscriptionStatsImpl#reset` ### Verifying this change - [x] Make sure that the change passes the CI checks. ### Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts: *If the box was checked, please highlight the changes* - [ ] Dependencies (add or upgrade a dependency) - [ ] The public API - [ ] The schema - [ ] The default values of configurations - [ ] The threading model - [ ] The binary protocol - [ ] The REST endpoints - [ ] The admin CLI options - [ ] The metrics - [ ] Anything that affects deployment ### Documentation - [ ] `doc` - [ ] `doc-required` - [x] `doc-not-needed` - [ ] `doc-complete` ### Matching PR in forked repository PR in forked repository: https://github.com/1Jack2/pulsar/pull/3 -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [pulsar] 1Jack2 closed pull request #20209: [fix][broker] Fix Return value of getPartitionedStats doesn't contain subscription type
1Jack2 closed pull request #20209: [fix][broker] Fix Return value of getPartitionedStats doesn't contain subscription type URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20209 -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [pulsar] 1Jack2 opened a new pull request, #20209: [fix][broker] Fix Return value of getPartitionedStats doesn't contain subscription type
1Jack2 opened a new pull request, #20209: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20209 Fixes #19970 ### Motivation Fix Return value of getPartitionedStats doesn't contain subscription type ### Modifications handle `type` field in `SubscriptionStatsImpl#add` and `SubscriptionStatsImpl#reset` ### Verifying this change - [x ] Make sure that the change passes the CI checks. *(Please pick either of the following options)* This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage. *(or)* This change is already covered by existing tests, such as *(please describe tests)*. *(or)* This change added tests and can be verified as follows: *(example:)* - *Added integration tests for end-to-end deployment with large payloads (10MB)* - *Extended integration test for recovery after broker failure* ### Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts: *If the box was checked, please highlight the changes* - [ ] Dependencies (add or upgrade a dependency) - [ ] The public API - [ ] The schema - [ ] The default values of configurations - [ ] The threading model - [ ] The binary protocol - [ ] The REST endpoints - [ ] The admin CLI options - [ ] The metrics - [ ] Anything that affects deployment ### Documentation - [ ] `doc` - [ ] `doc-required` - [x] `doc-not-needed` - [ ] `doc-complete` ### Matching PR in forked repository PR in forked repository: -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [pulsar] tisonkun commented on pull request #20201: [fix][client] SchemaDefinition handle JSR310_CONVERSION_ENABLED property
tisonkun commented on PR #20201: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20201#issuecomment-1529055582 > We should parse the xxx.schema.properties value to Java Map format to avoid hard-coding, and then assert it. That's a test style issue. I follow what existing tests do. Maybe a follow-up to rewrite all tests in that file. -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [pulsar-site] Sherlock113 opened a new pull request, #548: [BLOG][WIP]Add pulsar 3.0 blog post
Sherlock113 opened a new pull request, #548: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pull/548 ### Documentation - [ ] `doc` - [ ] `doc-required` - [x] `doc-not-needed` - [ ] `doc-complete` -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [pulsar] niclash added a comment to the discussion: Pulsar Functions lifecycle and depolyment details.
GitHub user niclash added a comment to the discussion: Pulsar Functions lifecycle and depolyment details. Thanks a lot for taking the time to answer; Pooling; Basically, if there is dynamic creation/destruction of instances during the life-time depending on load. What you write is basically; no it is set up statically by user. Thread-safety; Everyone showcase stateless Functions and having no context it operates in. I don't find myself in that luxurious situation, and to set up the overall/over-arching context, it helps a lot to understand the exact behavior of the underlying framework. I don't really like "don't worry about it", that some systems/frameworks give. Deploy; The thing is, it is a lot simpler for me to let Ansible do the same on plenty of machines, than to do it on one. Pulsar itself sits behind firewall, so I can't reach the Pulsar APIs from my workstation, so Ansible can't execute it on localhost either. Complete; The processing in the function, letting the function return before killing it. And then there is immediately the follow up, what happens if the function has hanged? GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/20195#discussioncomment-5766393 This is an automatically sent email for commits@pulsar.apache.org. To unsubscribe, please send an email to: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org
[GitHub] [pulsar] asafm added a comment to the discussion: Pulsar Functions lifecycle and depolyment details.
GitHub user asafm added a comment to the discussion: Pulsar Functions lifecycle and depolyment details. I'm not a function expert, but I can contribute a bit of my knowledge in here. > IIUIC, I have the option (among other) to run my functions (trusted) inside > the same JVM as the Pulsar Broker itself, by choosing "Run function workers > with brokers" and the "thread runtime". And if I want to run on the same VM > as the broker, but in separate OS process, I simply follow "process runtime". > Is that correct? I don't need K8s to run functions (I have not set up K8s)? Process runtime will launch a process per function instance. For example, if you specified a function to have 3 instances, 3 process would be launched. Function Worker role (even when run inside Pulsar VM) - you can have many of them. One of them would be the leader and scheduler - meaning it will instruct which of the instances should run each function instance. If this is a production environment, it seems better to separate Function Worker and Broker to separate machines. > Lifecycle of functions is very unclear to me. > a. How many instances are created? > b. One per request? > c. One per key? > d. Are instances pooled? > e. Do the functions need to be thread-safe? > f. Can I control it? > When you deploy or update a function using REST or admin CLI, you can specify how many instances you want per each function. Each instance runs in its own Thread/Process/Pod depending on the runtime. Not per request/key. Not sure about the pooling question. Can you elaborate? Regarding thread safety, I guess only if you share variables, but you shouldn't. > When deploying with "pulsar-admin functions create", do I need to > do that on each broker instance, or just once? What happens if my > Ansible tries to do that in parallel on all instances? > > >From my understanding, Pulsar has a storage area where the function metadata >and the JAR/NAR are stored. You should deploy to Pulsar a function only once. > b. I assume that "pulsar-admin functions update" will let all > functions complete before killing the thread/process. Right? > Compete on what? GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/discussions/20195#discussioncomment-5766122 This is an automatically sent email for commits@pulsar.apache.org. To unsubscribe, please send an email to: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org
[GitHub] [pulsar-dotpulsar] tisonkun opened a new issue, #150: Broken link in README.md
tisonkun opened a new issue, #150: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-dotpulsar/issues/150 https://github.com/apache/pulsar-dotpulsar/blob/95183053e1fde2a95c405ccf2ecf51920d56435c/README.md?plain=1#L100 cc @blankensteiner what's the correct link now? -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[pulsar] branch master updated: [fix][docs] Remove old template inlined (#20208)
This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository. tison pushed a commit to branch master in repository https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/pulsar.git The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push: new e8d63952a40 [fix][docs] Remove old template inlined (#20208) e8d63952a40 is described below commit e8d63952a40b79499eb3fd524f80db6bc986ed34 Author: Asaf Mesika AuthorDate: Sun Apr 30 12:58:53 2023 +0300 [fix][docs] Remove old template inlined (#20208) --- wiki/proposals/PIP.md | 35 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 34 deletions(-) diff --git a/wiki/proposals/PIP.md b/wiki/proposals/PIP.md index 159c9199895..fc68905726e 100644 --- a/wiki/proposals/PIP.md +++ b/wiki/proposals/PIP.md @@ -116,38 +116,5 @@ Some examples: ## Template for a PIP design doc -``` -## Motivation +Read [the template file](/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/pip.md). -Explain why this change is needed, what benefits it would bring to Apache Pulsar -and what problem it's trying to solve. - -## Goal - -Define the scope of this proposal. Given the motivation stated above, what are -the problems that this proposal is addressing and what other items will be -considering out of scope, perhaps to be left to a different PIP. - -## API Changes - -Illustrate all the proposed changes to the API or wire protocol, with examples -of all the newly added classes/methods, including Javadoc. - -## Implementation - -This should be a detailed description of all the changes that are -expected to be made. It should be detailed enough that any developer that is -familiar with Pulsar internals would be able to understand all the parts of the -code changes for this proposal. - -This should also serve as documentation for any person that is trying to -understand or debug the behavior of a certain feature. - - -## Reject Alternatives - -If there are alternatives that were already considered by the authors or, -after the discussion, by the community, and were rejected, please list them -here along with the reason why they were rejected. - -```
[GitHub] [pulsar] tisonkun merged pull request #20208: [fix][docs] Remove old template inlined
tisonkun merged PR #20208: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20208 -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [pulsar] tisonkun commented on a diff in pull request #20208: [fix][docs] Remove old template inlined
tisonkun commented on code in PR #20208: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20208#discussion_r1181201556 ## wiki/proposals/PIP.md: ## @@ -115,39 +115,5 @@ Some examples: ## Template for a PIP design doc +Located at https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/pip.md Review Comment: ```suggestion ## Template for a PIP design doc Read [the template file](/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/pip.md). ``` -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [pulsar] asafm opened a new pull request, #20208: [fix][docs] Remove old template inlined
asafm opened a new pull request, #20208: URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/20208 We merged the new PIP template as a GitHub issue template, but forgot to remove the inline template. ### Motivation The new PIP template was merged as GitHub Issue template, but forgot to remove inline template. ### Verifying this change - [x] Make sure that the change passes the CI checks. *(Please pick either of the following options)* This change is a trivial rework / code cleanup without any test coverage. ### Does this pull request potentially affect one of the following parts: *If the box was checked, please highlight the changes* - [ ] Dependencies (add or upgrade a dependency) - [ ] The public API - [ ] The schema - [ ] The default values of configurations - [ ] The threading model - [ ] The binary protocol - [ ] The REST endpoints - [ ] The admin CLI options - [ ] The metrics - [ ] Anything that affects deployment ### Documentation - [ ] `doc` - [ ] `doc-required` - [ ] `doc-not-needed` - [ ] `doc-complete` -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@pulsar.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
[GitHub] [pulsar] asafm opened a new issue, #20207: PIP-265: PR-based system for managing and reviewing PIPs
asafm opened a new issue, #20207:
URL: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/20207
# Background
In the last 2 months, I've increased my PIP review time (I do it in cycles),
and reviewed quite a few PIPs.
My conclusion as a result of that:
It's nearly impossible to review PIPs using a mailing list.
We must fix it soon.
## Why?
1. **Very hard to review using email.**
Let's say you review the PIP and find 10 issues. Once you quote and
comment on those ten points, you basically started 10 threads of conversations.
After 2-3 ping pongs with quotes of quotes of quotes, it takes you
forever to read each thread properly. You find yourself doing CTRL-F to search
to find your original quote, and reply. Load it up again in your head,
switching to the PIP tab to read it again.
After 10 ping pongs, it becomes almost an impossible mission.
I can say I'm 75% tired just from the process, not from the review
itself.
2. **It's non collaborative by design.**
After 10 ping pongs, the ability of someone to come and join the discussion
is 0. They need to go through so many replies, which are half quotes, find the
original reply, and browse to the PIP.
It's no wonder people drop off the PIP review once we cross 5-6 replies.
It's no wonder, nobody joins after 10 replies.
3. **It's not open to the public. Non collaborative.**
You can't just get a link, and join the review. Not only because of (1) and
(2). You need to join the mailing list. You don't get the past emails to reply.
Just joining the list is a high enough bar for many people.
I personally participated in review of proposals in OpenTelemetry in the
last 6 months, even though I'm just an occasional user. Why? They were
conducted on GitHub PR , so it was easy for me - click a link and reply.
4. **All over the place**
Sometimes people comment on the GitHub issue.
Sometimes on the mailing list.
Not a single place.
5. **No history.**
Ok, finally the author was convinced. I can't see just the changes. They
need to explicitly tell me something was changed.
6. **Delete All.**
They can go crazy, after 1 year, edit the GitHub issue , delete all the text
and write "Kafka is the king". No history, nobody can stop them. It's their
issue.
7. **Show me all the approved PIPs**
Hard to track it today, hard to keep up to date.
8. **Resolved comments**
Even though you managed to read all 35 replies so far, in reply 36 you see
the author agreed to all 8 out of 10 suggestions. You have no idea of knowing
that in advance. You just wasted 1 hour.
# Proposal
PR is the main tool we have that allows multiple threaded discussion.
Git provides history. You can't delete it without approval from PMC members.
1. We'll create a folder named "pip" in the pulsar main repo. It will
contain one markdown file for each PIP. The file will be named `pip-xxx.md`. We
will write below how to obtain `xxx`before you start.
2. To create a PIP, you grab `pip/template.md` and use it to compose your
file in the `pip` folder.
3. You submit this file as a PR named "PIP-xxx: {short description}".
4. You create "[DISCUSS] PIP-xxx: {short description}" in the DEV mailing
list and refer people to your PR, with short text explaining the gist of it.
5. People discuss using PR comments, each is its own threaded comment.
General comments can be made both as replies in the mailing list or as general
comment in the PR. After 10 PIPs in this way we’ll be able to see what people
gravitate towards and what’s more convenient and consider refining that.
6. Comment was done? They resolve it. This way you see what the pending
discussions are at a glance.
7. Reached consensus? Good. Send "[VOTE] PIP-xxx: short description" on DEV
mailing list,
8. Following vote process as described before:
Everyone is welcome to vote on the proposal, though only the the vote of
the PMC members will be considered binding. It is required to have a lazy
majority of at least 3 binding +1s votes. The vote should stay open for at
least 48 hours.
9. PIP approved? Awesome. Push commit with link to the vote on mailing list.
A PMC member will merge it.
Merge == approved.
PMC members can add a PIP label.
10. Rejected? All good. Close the PR.
Closed == Rejected.
It can't be deleted. All comments are still there.
There will be README in the `pip` folder containing:
1. The process description
2. Link to find accepted proposal PRs
3. Link to find rejected proposal (PRs)
4. Historical reference to PIPs prior to this proposal (where to find them).
### Grabbing PIP number
Before you start, you search Pull Requests with label PIP in GitHub (`is:pr
"PIP-" in:title`)
Take the biggest number and add 1.
It is super rare to have two people create PR at the same
