Hi, all the Pulsar community members,
Pulsar Summit San Francisco 2022 CFP is open now! It will be our *first-ever
in-person Pulsar Summit *in San Francisco! We're glad to invite you to
share your experience and add up to the wonderfulness.
As a speaker, you will receive the chance to
Congratulations, Prashant!
- Sijie
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 10:06 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Welcome!
>
> Very well deserved
>
> Enrico
>
> Il Lun 3 Gen 2022, 18:17 Jonathan Ellis ha scritto:
>
> > Congratulations, Prashant!
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 11:15 AM Henry Saputra
> > wrote:
> >
Jack,
Awesome! Glad to know the PR is finally out for review.
Sijie
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 10:48 AM Jack Vanlightly
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The BP-46 running without the journal changes are ready for review.
>
> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/2936
>
> You can view the BP PR here:
>
+1
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 6:35 AM Matteo Merli wrote:
> There are few fixes in the 4.14 that would be good to release soon.
>
> Given that the timeline for 4.15 can be quite long, I'd propose to
> release one more patch release right now.
>
> Let me know if there are other fixes to include.
>
+1 Looks very promising
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 9:36 AM Maurice Barnum
wrote:
> In order to improve IO utilization, Splunk developed support for logging
> entries bypassing the kernel's buffer cache via O_DIRECT. The code has
> been in production for several months, running on Linux, with an
>
Congrats, Jack!
- Sijie
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 2:37 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache BookKeeper
> has invited Jack Vanlightly to become a committer and we are pleased
> to announce that he has accepted.
>
>
> Being a committer enables easier
+1
- signatures are good
- source package is good
- binary package is good
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 5:17 PM Yong Zhang
wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Any PMC give this release one more +1 to close this vote?
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 at 17:40, Nicolò Boschi wrote:
>
> > +1 (non binding)
> >
> >
+1
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 11:59 PM Yong Zhang wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We have changed the BouncyCastle at this PR
> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/2631,
> which introduces an Incompatible issue. Detail:
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/10937.
>
> This also blocks the user upgrade
Zhang!
Sijie Guo
on behalf of Apache BookKeeper PMC
+1
Verified the followings:
- checksum, signatures
- source package can build
- binary package can run
- Sijie
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:34 PM Matteo Merli wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the version
> 4.14.1, as follows:
> [ ] +1, Approve
+1 (binding)
All things below are good.
* Signatures
* Source package structure, and compile
* Binary package
* Running standalone bookie and client
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 9:43 AM Matteo Merli wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Checked:
> * Signatures
> * Source package structure, and
+1
On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 2:22 AM Yunze Xu
wrote:
> Hello,
> About 10 days ago I found a heap memory copy problem in Apache Pulsar, see
> [1].
> It’s a problem of BK side because when `LedgerHandle#asyncAddEntry`
> accepts a `CompositeByteBuf` or a wrapper, it will finally call
>
Hi, Pulsar and BookKeeper communities,
The adoption of Apache Pulsar and BookKeeper is accelerating as
organizations around the world pursue cloud-native technologies. To build
on this momentum, we are excited to announce the first-ever Apache Pulsar
Hackathon 2021, *taking place on May 6-7th*.
Dear Apache Pulsar community,
We are excited to announce that Pulsar Summit North America 2021 will be
hosted virtually on June 16th - 17th. Call-for-speakers and attendee
registration are now open for the conference!
Pulsar Summit is the conference dedicated to Apache Pulsar, and the
messaging
have a data loss if we skip the entry and
> consequently have a problem with the protocol. If anyone cares to explain
> the deterministic check referred to, I'd appreciate.
>
Based on my understanding, Jack wants the behavior on recovering an entry
does not have enough replicas to be determ
> >> consistently.
> >
> >> I am not sure it is a problem unless I misunderstand it.
> >
> > It is true that it doesn't violate any safety property, but it is a
> strange
> > check to me. It looks like an implementation artefact rather than an
> >
rather than an
> explicit protocol design choice. But not a huge deal.
>
It was discussed in the earlier days as a design choice for this protocol.
If we want to make it deterministic, we might need to consider what is the
performance penalty.
>
> Jack
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 202
Sorry for being late in this thread.
If I understand this correctly, the main topic is about the "hole" when WQ
> AQ.
> This leaves a "hole" as the entry is now replicated only to 2 bookies,
We do have one hole when ensemble change is enabled and WQ > AQ. That was a
known behavior. But the hole
+1 (binding)
- Source package looks good
- Binary package looks good
- The release tag is good
- Sijie
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:43 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Thank you Amit, Matteo and Henry,
> we need at least one more +1 from a PMC in order to validate the release
> (assuming my own +1)
>
+1 (binding)
- Both source package and binaries are good.
- Test compiling the source package.
- Tags and license are good
- Sijie
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:17 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> +1 (binding)
> - Build sources on Mac, with JDK14
> - Tested the built sources, run a few smoke tests
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 3:09 AM Ivan Kelly wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> It's been about a year since Streamlio joined Splunk and since then
> we've had a bit of forking with our BK branch.
> It has gotten to a stage where it's starting to be a problem for us,
> so we'd like to start to get things back
at 5:18 AM Enrico Olivelli
> wrote:
>
> > Il giorno mer 4 nov 2020 alle ore 22:17 Sijie Guo
> ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > > Okay. I will do the release.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
> > I will report any showstopper as soon as possib
rent Pulsar master.
>
> I am happy that you do the release
>
> Please confirm that you are going to do it
>
> Enrico
>
> Il Mer 4 Nov 2020, 17:37 Sijie Guo ha scritto:
>
> > +1
> >
> > If you need any help with the release, I can do the release this time
+1
If you need any help with the release, I can do the release this time.
- Sijie
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:05 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hello BookKeepers,
> I would like to cut 4.12.0
>
> There are still a few interesting pull requests pending review
>
Thank you, Enrico!
I have just submitted the report.
- Sijie
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 1:44 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Sijie,
> this is my proposal of report to the board (sharing it on dev@ this way
> everyone can know about this important activity on the lifecycle of the
> project)
>
> ##
+1
On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 1:34 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi,
> Can I create an #herddb channel on our BookKeeper slack space ?
>
> After my talk at PulsarSummit we started having a few new contacts on
> herddb-dev mailing list, but sometimes slack is more efficient.
>
> HerdDB community is
Hi Enrico,
I have reached out to Rich to create a track for pulsar/bookkeeper. If you
have any talk ideas, please submit the talks and let me know your
submissions. I will include that on the track.
- Sijie
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:04 AM Enrico Olivelli
wrote:
> Hey Bookkeepers
> This is a
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:18 PM Jia Zhai wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Environment: macOS 10.15.5
>
> - verified packages checksum ( asc and sha good)
>
> - the source package build and test all run successfully.
>
> - in both binary package(server & all), 'bin/bookkeeper standalone'
Ghatage ha scritto:
>>
>>> Hi Bookies,
>>>
>>> We've had quite a few issues reported recently about the site.
>>> Some are about the fact that the site has dead links and some are about
>>> the content.
>>> I tried to build the site recen
Hi JV,
It unset the failed bookies and resend the write requests, no?
- Sijie
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 11:05 PM Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri
wrote:
> I am looking at a feature to disableEnsembleChanges
> If the disableEnsembleChangeFeature
>
Hi all,
Over the past few weeks, after having to reschedule Pulsar Summit San
Francisco 2020, we have been working on delivering the event in an online
format instead. Today, we are excited to announce the Pulsar Summit Virtual
Conference, happening on June 17-18!
Join the speakers from Splunk,
Anup, thank you!
I am going to send the report.
- Sijie
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:27 PM Enrico Olivelli
wrote:
> Good
>
> Sijie have you sent it?
>
> Enrico
>
> Il Mer 13 Mag 2020, 00:34 Anup Ghatage ha scritto:
>
>> Thank you for your comments Enrico, I've made the changes as you
>>
e configured disk format version.
>
> It is always able to read the old format, and it will write during regular
> writes and during compaction only the format configured in bk_server.conf
>
>
>
> Enrico
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Subash Kunjupillai
>
>
+ users@ back to the discussion.
Sorry for being late to the discussion here.
When talking about "rollback" behavior, it usually involves two questions:
1) does wire protocol support rollback?
2) does data(metadata) format support rollback?
For the first question, the bookkeeper provides very
I think we can make 4.10.1 first?
- Sijie
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 11:05 PM Enrico Olivelli
wrote:
> Alessandro,
> Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> From my point of view these items are to be checked:
> - We have problems on Integration Tests (on GitHub Actions,
>
>
Congratulations Rajan! Thank you for your contribution!
- Sijie
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 12:24 PM Rajan Dhabalia
wrote:
> Thank you Enrico and other members for sharing the opportunity.
>
> Thanks,
> Rajan
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:19 AM Enrico Olivelli
> wrote:
>
> > The Apache
We can port the pulsarbot approach to bookkeeper. So non-committers can use
a similar bot command to trigger re-running tests.
- Sijie
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 12:58 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi,
> We are still having troubles with CI.
> Even trivial patches fail, due to GitHub Actions or due
I think the checkout action is changed to v2.
Added Yijie here. Since he helped fixing the issue in Pulsar, he can help
fixing the issue in bookkeeper as well.
Sijie
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 2:29 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi guys,
> it looks like GitHub ACtions sometimes fails to checkout
Yong,
Can you help look into this?
Thanks,
Sijie
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 4:34 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi,
> integration tests started failing on GitHub Actions.
>
> see:
>
>
can find more detailed track descriptions and the form to submit a
proposal on the Pulsar Summit website at
--> https://pulsar-summit.org/call-for-presentations/
--> https://sessionize.com/pulsar-summit-san-francisco-2020/
As usual, accepted speakers get a free conference pass.
Best regards,
I thought we are waiting for migrating to Github Actions. Yong's vote is
waiting for anther binding vote. Can you approve that?
Thanks,
Sijie
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 1:23 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi Bookkeepers,
> We have plenty of pending pull requests on github.
>
> We need to help
Hi,
We have the Call-For-Presentations (CFP) and pre-registration open for
Pulsar Summit. Since Pulsar uses BookKeeper as the event storage, we have
seen an increasing interest in BookKeeper and have created a dedicated
track for BookKeeper. If you have any talk ideas about your BookKeeper
usage
+1 binding
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 6:50 PM Jia Zhai wrote:
> +1
>
> Best Regards.
>
>
> Jia Zhai
>
> Beijing, China
>
> Mobile: +86 15810491983
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 12:48 AM Alessandro Luccaroni - Diennea <
> alessandro.luccar...@diennea.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> >
The Apache Pulsar team is proud to announce Apache Pulsar version 2.5.0.
Pulsar is a highly scalable, low latency messaging platform running on
commodity hardware. It provides simple pub-sub semantics over topics,
guaranteed at-least-once delivery of messages, automatic cursor management
for
SGTM
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 9:16 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Any insight over this problem ?
>
> If no one objects I will update my patch in order to clean up that 'shade
> plugin' stuff
> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/2233
>
> Please note that bookkeeper and distributed log
+1
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:08 AM Alessandro Luccaroni - Diennea <
alessandro.luccar...@diennea.com> wrote:
> Hi BookKeepers,
> BookKeeper 4.6.2 was released in April 2018
> BookKeeper 4.7.3 was released in December 2018
>
> Every system in the wild that I know off is using releases newer than
+1
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:08 AM Alessandro Luccaroni - Diennea <
alessandro.luccar...@diennea.com> wrote:
> Hi BookKeepers,
> since early 2019 the rate of contribution have slowed down significantly,
> this is a vote to relax the Time Based Release Plan from the actual "every
> 3 months" to
Yes. Let's start a vote?
Thanks,
Sijie
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 3:41 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> I would like to EOL up to 4.7.x
>
> We also have a few CI jobs for 4.7
> It a total waste of resources
>
> Enrico
>
> Il mar 3 dic 2019, 18:29 Sijie Guo ha scritto:
I think it is worth considering moving CI to Github Actions. Jenkins has
been very terrible :(
- Sijie
On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 9:01 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi,
> We have problems on node H30 on ASF Jenkins
>
> I have excluded that node manually from some of our precommit jobs thant
> seems
Hi Enrico,
Thank you for putting all these together. We are interested in this feature.
I have made some comments in the proposal. PTAL.
Thanks,
Sijie
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:25 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi,
> any interest in this proposal ?
>
> It will open up the way to having more
LGTM. +1
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 10:25 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Thank you Dave
>
> can you please "Approve" the pull request ?
> Unfortunately Travis has problems and the build fails, I have started
> another thread to fix the problem
>
> Enrico
>
> Il giorno ven 3 gen 2020 alle ore 15:24
Enrico,
LGTM. +1
- Sijie
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 10:49 PM David Rusek wrote:
> Another option could be to create a Github bookkeeper org and host these as
> separate projects under the same umbrella. I think this might be an option
> for the future but I wanted to throw it out there.
>
> On
+1 the proposal looks good to me.
If there is no objections about this, you can submit the proposal to bk
website, following the process here:
http://bookkeeper.apache.org/community/bookkeeper_proposals/
Thanks,
Sijie
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:11 PM Anup Ghatage wrote:
> Hi Everyone!,
>
> I
ub.com/apache/bookkeeper/tree/release-4.10.0-docker
>>
>> It seems that we changed something in 4.8.2 with this commit from @Ivan
>> Kelly
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/commit/5e9828b795d7ef82c17f72a6c9efb6d0e0b4c8d7
>>
>> Enrico
>>
>> Il
sandro
>
> > -----Messaggio originale-
> > Da: Sijie Guo
> > Inviato: martedì 3 dicembre 2019 08:19
> > A: Bookkeeper-Dev
> > Oggetto: Re: Website update after 4.10, Time Based Release plan and EOL
> >
> > Yes. We can probably relax the release window
Yes. We can probably relax the release window to be every 6 months. If the
growth of development increases again, we can revert it back to every 3
months.
Regarding EOL policy, we haven't really discussed how to proceed it. Most
of the systems I know are already using newer versions than 4.7.0. I
I am not sure it is a good idea to expose the stats via a RPC endpoint.
Because most of the stats collection systems (e.g. prometheus) are
collecting stats via an http endpoints.
I don't think we should duplicate the work that a stats library is good at.
Other thoughts inline.
On Sat, Nov 30,
Enrico,
It is docker autobuild. We don't manage this part. I would suggest filling
an INFRA ticket to see what is the issue.
- Sijie
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:59 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> @Sijie Guo @Ivan Kelly
> Do you have any idea ?
>
> I can't remember if we have e
+1 for deprecating the legacy API.
Sijie
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 3:23 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi,
> I think it is time to work in the direction of deprecating the "old" client
> API in favour of the new client API.
>
> Blockers:
> 1) Convert the documentation on the website to use only the
FYI. I just posted the report.
Thanks Enrico for putting this together!
- Sijie
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:42 PM Sijie Guo wrote:
> Hi Enrico,
>
> Thank you for putting this together! Overall looks good to me.
>
> You can find the statistics here:
> https://reporter
LGTM
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:50 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi,
> as part of the release procedure I was changing the version of the python
> client manually to 4.11.0-SNAPSHOT
>
> I have pushed the change directly to the master branch
>
>
>
he ASF borad I am preparing
> Any comment and correction is welcome from the community.
> This time I used the wizard at
> https://reporter.apache.org/wizard/?bookkeeper
>
> @Sijie Guo I can't find mailing list activity stats,
> can you help me ? It seems that "reporter&qu
+1 (binding)
- verified signatures, shasum
- build the source
- binary can run
- tag is good
- release note is good.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 7:46 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the version 4.10.0,
> as follows:
> [ ] +1,
Hi Karan,
Thank you for your proposal. Can you also add your proposal as a BP to the
BP list? You can check the BP process here:
http://bookkeeper.apache.org/community/bookkeeper_proposals/
Thanks,
Sijie
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 5:53 AM Karan Mehta
wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I wrote up a
If we are close to a release, I would suggest holding on upgrading the
dependencies. We can upgrade in 4.11.
Thanks,
Sijie
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:58 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Ping
>
> Il ven 16 ago 2019, 19:03 Enrico Olivelli ha
> scritto:
>
> > Hi all,
> > Is it worth to upgrade Netty
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:20 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi folks,
> as Charan merged new tests for the clusterwise ledger scrutiny I would like
> to cut a new release and hopefully restart the timebased release schedule.
>
+1
>
> The only problem I must report before starting the procedure
+1 we should try to follow the time based release schedule.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 3:08 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi,
> I feel we are no more following the time based release schedule.
>
> it is time to think about releasing 4.10.0 ?
>
> There is some ongoing work that it is worth to commit
+1 from me. `Cookie` was designed for keeping the informations that is
associated with a bookie (e.g. disk layouts, bookie id and etc).
I think it is making sense to have `FaultZoneId` stored as part of the
cookie.
- Sijie
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 9:48 AM Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri
wrote:
> In
co Olivelli
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Thanks
> > Enrico
> >
> > Il gio 9 mag 2019, 06:30 Matteo Merli ha
> scritto:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matteo Merli
> > >
> > >
Hi all,
Here is a draft for BookKeeper board report of May. Please take a look.
If there is no objections, I will submit it today.
---
## Description:
BookKeeper is a scalable, fault-tolerant, and low-latency storage
service optimized for append-only workloads. It has been used as
a
FYI. Jia has filed an application for BookKeeper. Once BookKeeper is
accepted as the project for SoD, he will bring the discussion back to the
dev mailing list.
- Sijie
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 5:02 AM Sijie Guo wrote:
> FYI.
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Sijie
FYI.
-- Forwarded message -
From: Sijie Guo
Date: Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 1:58 PM
Subject: Fwd: Projects Can Apply Individually for Google Season of Docs
To: Dev
FYI. Now projects can apply individually for Google Season of Docs. We
should just apply this.
- Sijie
I am fine with it if there is someone pushing the process forward.
- Sijie
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 4:12 AM Jia Zhai wrote:
> +1 for ivan's idea
>
> Best Regards.
>
>
> Jia Zhai
>
> Beijing, China
>
> Mobile: +86 15810491983
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 6:55 PM Enrico Olivelli
> wrote:
>
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 2:44 AM Ivan Kelly wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Looking at doing the final tasks for the 4.8.2 release and stuck on
> the docker bit. It's not that I don't see what has been done before,
> but more that what is there is so so wrong.
>
> Take 4.8.1 release for example. The
+1
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 5:16 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I need to cut 4.9.1 because we are seeing very often this issue
>
> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/commit/25c7506c0513351c533db643cb10c953d1e6d0b7
>
> Please tag any issue you want to merge into 4.9 branch.
>
> I will
FYI
-- Forwarded message -
From: Kenneth Knowles
Date: Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Google Season of Docs 2019
To:
Cc: dev , , dev <
d...@beam.apache.org>, , <
d...@training.apache.org>
That's a lot of dev lists on one thread. Adding a couple more... :-)
Kenn
+1 (binding)
- verified source & binary package
- asc & sha512 are good
- artifacts are good
- tag is good
On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 2:28 AM Ivan Kelly wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the version
> 4.8.2, as follows:
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [
FYI. The CFP for ApacheCon North America is now open.
-- Forwarded message -
From: Rich Bowen
Date: Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:00 PM
Subject: 4 Apache Events in 2019: DC Roadshow soon; next up Chicago, Las
Vegas, and Berlin!
To:
Dear Apache Enthusiast,
(You’re receiving this
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:37 PM Lothruin Mirwen
wrote:
> Hi BookKeepers!
>
> I have an issue with DL LogReader.readNext(false) [ie: blocking]
>
> Such call should "block until return a record if there are records in the
> stream (aka catching up). Otherwise it would wait up to {@link
>
-QXm6IeDkRsEzypAjNXgfK7Y/edit#
Let me know if you have any comments or questions. Feel free to leave the
comments at google doc directly as well.
- Sijie
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 8:39 PM Sijie Guo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We will be resuming our regular bookkeeper community meeting starting th
Hi all,
We will be resuming our regular bookkeeper community meeting starting this
week.
The meeting will be held at 8am PST on 02/21/2019.
I am using a google doc for tracking the meeting notes. Please note the
google doc is used for collaboration during the meeting process. All the
meeting
at 3:18 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Il giorno dom 17 feb 2019, 01:06 Sijie Guo ha
> scritto:
>
> > > Other proposal is to setup
> > > two meetings in a month, one is convenient for US
> > > and other is convenient for Asia/Europe.
> >
> > I think
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:22 AM Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri
wrote:
> Recently we ran into a situation where the LedgerMetadataListener never
> returned/detected metadata change. Due to this reader had stale metadata
> and tried to read from bookies that no longer have that ledger, hence
>
he night if it is not between 6-9PM PST.
> > In the morning I am fine to take early calls even at 7 AM. I am just
> > stating my availability, and the goal should be larger participation IMO.
> >
> > JV
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 9:14 PM Sijie Guo
I think it is very difficult to find a good time slot for US, Europe and
Asia.
I would propose followings:
- keep the regular community meetings at 8AM PST and make sure all meeting
notes are updated and shared via mailing lists. Release manager should
drive the community meeting.
-
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 6:09 AM Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri
wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this up. To start with, can we put all forms on LAC in
> a doc? i.e we have more than one way to read and write LAC.
> 1. What are the ways to send LAC to Bookies?
> 2. What are the ways bookies store the LAC?
FYI. I have submitted the board report.
Thanks Jia for drafting the report and all the reviewers reviewing the
report.
Great community work!
- Sijie
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 8:13 AM Sijie Guo wrote:
> Good job, Jia. +1
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:11 PM Jia Zhai wrote:
>
>>
sab 2 feb 2019, 01:08 Sijie Guo ha scritto:
>
> > Thanks, Enrico.
> >
> > I have sent out a PR to update our release schedule page.
> > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/1932
> >
> > - Sijie
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 3:30 PM Enrico O
Good job, Jia. +1
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 4:11 PM Jia Zhai wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Here is a draft for BookKeeper Board report of Feb. Please take a look.
>
> -
>
>
> ## Description:
>
>
> BookKeeper is a scalable, fault-tolerant, and low-latency storage
>
> service
The Apache BookKeeper team is proud to announce Apache BookKeeper version
4.9.0.
Apache BookKeeper is a scalable, fault-tolerant, and low-latency storage
service optimized for
real-time workloads. It has been used for a fundamental service to build
reliable services.
It is also the log segment
Thanks, Enrico.
I have sent out a PR to update our release schedule page.
https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/1932
- Sijie
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 3:30 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Il giorno dom 27 gen 2019, 06:00 Sijie Guo ha scritto:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Sinc
Hi all,
I am happy to announce the vote for 4.9.0 rc1 has passed with 5 +1 binding
votes and 0 -1 votes.
5 +1 bindings are:
Enrico Olivelli
Ivan Kelly
Jia Zhai
Matteo Merli
Sijie Guo
I will do the remaining tasks for completing 4.9.0 release.
Thanks,
Sijie
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 12:38 PM
Include my +1 here as well.
- Sijie
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 12:38 PM Sijie Guo wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 4.9.0,
> as follows:
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide
Hi all,
Since we are in the progress of releasing 4.9.0, I think it is a good time
to start the discussion of what we are going to do for 4.10.0.
Here are a few list of tasks I have in my mind:
- Complete a few ongoing BPs
* BP-27: New BookKeeper CLI `bkctl`.
* BP-36: Stats annotations
*
Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version 4.9.0,
as follows:
[ ] +1, Approve the release
[ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
* Release notes [1]
* The
Cancel rc0.
Will send out rc1 soon.
- Sijie
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 6:27 PM Sijie Guo wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the version 0.4.0,
> as follows:
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (pleas
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 8:40 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi all,
> while reviewing 4.9 release I found this problem around a change about
> EnsemblePlacementPolicy
>
> this is the issue
> https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/1914
>
> The problem is that in public API we should not use
97
>
> We can release 4.9 without such docs by if someone in the community has
> some cycle it will be a great step forward for the adoption of this new
> features
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Enrico
>
>
>
> Il mar 15 gen 2019, 03:19 Sijie Guo ha scritto:
>
> > As
gt; >
> > Sijie,
> > If you prefer I can take this.
> > Most of the work is from you and Ivan
> >
> > No problem for me.
> > Thank you
> > Enrico
> >
> > Il gio 27 dic 2018, 10:53 Sijie Guo ha scritto:
> >>
> >> Since no one volunte
Since no one volunteers for being release manager, I will take this round
then.
- Sijie
On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 2:13 PM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi Bookkeepers !
> Any plan to volunteer for being release manager of 4.9 ?
>
> I will be happy to help any one who wants to try for the first
1 - 100 of 1276 matches
Mail list logo
