[jira] [Resolved] (BOOKKEEPER-748) Move fence requests out of read threads

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-748?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sijie Guo resolved BOOKKEEPER-748. -- Resolution: Fixed Issue resolved by merging pull request 174

[GitHub] bookkeeper pull request #174: BOOKKEEPER-748: Move fence requests out of rea...

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/174 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-748) Move fence requests out of read threads

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-748?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16037525#comment-16037525 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on BOOKKEEPER-748: --- Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-1092) Ledger Recovery - Add Test Case for Parallel Ledger Recovery

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-1092?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16037517#comment-16037517 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on BOOKKEEPER-1092: Github user sijie commented on the issue:

[GitHub] bookkeeper issue #182: BOOKKEEPER-1092: Ledger Recovery (Part 5) - Add Test ...

Github user sijie commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/182 @merlimat can you review this as well? --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-1089) Ledger Recovery - allow batch reads in ledger recovery

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-1089?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16037515#comment-16037515 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on BOOKKEEPER-1089: Github user sijie commented on the issue:

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-1093) Piggyback LAC on ReadResponse

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-1093?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16037514#comment-16037514 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on BOOKKEEPER-1093: Github user sijie commented on the issue:

[GitHub] bookkeeper issue #181: BOOKKEEPER-1089: Ledger Recovery (part-4) - allow bat...

Github user sijie commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/181 @merlimat ? --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if

[GitHub] bookkeeper issue #180: BOOKKEEPER-1093: Piggyback LAC on ReadResponse

Github user sijie commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/180 @merlimat review? --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so,

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-1088) Ledger Recovery - Add a ReadEntryListener to callback on individual request

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-1088?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16037502#comment-16037502 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on BOOKKEEPER-1088: Github user asfgit closed the pull request

[GitHub] bookkeeper pull request #178: BOOKKEEPER-1088: Ledger Recovery (part-3) - Ad...

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/178 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is

[GitHub] bookkeeper pull request #177: BOOKKEEPER-1087: Ledger Recovery (part 2) - Ad...

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/177 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-1087) Ledger Recovery - Add a parallel reading request in PendingReadOp

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-1087?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16037467#comment-16037467 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on BOOKKEEPER-1087: Github user asfgit closed the pull request

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-1087) Ledger Recovery - Add a parallel reading request in PendingReadOp

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-1087?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16037463#comment-16037463 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on BOOKKEEPER-1087: Github user sijie commented on the issue:

[GitHub] bookkeeper issue #177: BOOKKEEPER-1087: Ledger Recovery (part 2) - Add a par...

Github user sijie commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/177 All CI passed. Merging this now. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-748) Move fence requests out of read threads

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-748?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16037358#comment-16037358 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on BOOKKEEPER-748: --- Github user sijie commented on the issue:

[GitHub] bookkeeper issue #174: BOOKKEEPER-748: Move fence requests out of read threa...

Github user sijie commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/174 rebased to latest master and wait CI to complete. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this

[jira] [Resolved] (BOOKKEEPER-944) Multiple issues and improvements to BK Compaction.

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-944?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sijie Guo resolved BOOKKEEPER-944. -- Resolution: Fixed Fix Version/s: 4.5.0 Issue resolved by merging pull request 108

[GitHub] bookkeeper issue #108: BOOKKEEPER-944: LowWaterMark Storage Threshold

Github user sijie commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/108 merged this. thank you @reddycharan @dlg99 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-944) Multiple issues and improvements to BK Compaction.

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-944?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16037335#comment-16037335 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on BOOKKEEPER-944: --- Github user sijie commented on the issue:

[jira] [Commented] (BOOKKEEPER-944) Multiple issues and improvements to BK Compaction.

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-944?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16037333#comment-16037333 ] ASF GitHub Bot commented on BOOKKEEPER-944: --- Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

[GitHub] bookkeeper pull request #108: BOOKKEEPER-944: LowWaterMark Storage Threshold

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/108 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is

Re: [DISCUSS] Move Bookkeeper Website from CMS to Jekyll (or other static generators)

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > Il lun 5 giu 2017, 17:56 Sijie Guo ha scritto: > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Flavio Junqueira wrote: > > > > > I don't have a super strong opinion here, but I'm not sure

Re: [DISCUSS] Move Bookkeeper Website from CMS to Jekyll (or other static generators)

Il lun 5 giu 2017, 17:56 Sijie Guo ha scritto: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Flavio Junqueira wrote: > > > I don't have a super strong opinion here, but I'm not sure I understand > > the concern. The textile files are stored in the repo, so any doc

Re: [VOTE] Use Github Issues for Issue Tracking

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Flavio Junqueira wrote: > Ok, so why don't we make clear what we are voting for? If this vote is approved, then the outcome is that the community is going > to work on a plan to move to github issues, and that plan will be voted? I believed

Re: [DISCUSS] Move Bookkeeper Website from CMS to Jekyll (or other static generators)

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Flavio Junqueira wrote: > I don't have a super strong opinion here, but I'm not sure I understand > the concern. The textile files are stored in the repo, so any doc changes > should be reviewed and committed as any other code change, no? Granted

Re: Publish SNAPSHOT artifacts on Maven Central

I think we will still need Jenkins, because it has more flexibilities than Travis. On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Enrico Olivelli wrote: > I took a look at jenkins job builder, it seems a great tool. > Two points before getting started: > 1) do anyone ever used this tool

Re: Publish SNAPSHOT artifacts on Maven Central

I took a look at jenkins job builder, it seems a great tool. Two points before getting started: 1) do anyone ever used this tool or something like that? 2) it needs calling the API and it is possible to delete all jenkins jobs with a single command, surely there will be some kind of permissions to

Re: [DISCUSS] Move Bookkeeper Website from CMS to Jekyll (or other static generators)

I don't have a super strong opinion here, but I'm not sure I understand the concern. The textile files are stored in the repo, so any doc changes should be reviewed and committed as any other code change, no? Granted that it is in the hands of a committer to push the changes to the web site,

Re: [VOTE] Use Github Issues for Issue Tracking

Ok, so why don't we make clear what we are voting for? If this vote is approved, then the outcome is that the community is going to work on a plan to move to github issues, and that plan will be voted? Or is it going to be considered a code change and require just a +1 from a committer? The