Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[discussion] Pulsar release 2.6.0 #5819

Closed
sijie opened this issue Dec 9, 2019 · 18 comments
Closed

[discussion] Pulsar release 2.6.0 #5819

sijie opened this issue Dec 9, 2019 · 18 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@sijie
Copy link
Member

sijie commented Dec 9, 2019

This issue is used for collecting the features planned for release 2.6.0.

Features

Pulsar Proxy

Admin

Functions

Pulsar SQL

Pulsar IO

Java Client

Python Client

CPP Client

Bug Fixes

Others

  • Work on JDK 11
@sijie
Copy link
Member Author

sijie commented Dec 9, 2019

Please link or comment the issues here.

@frank-dkvan
Copy link

hopefully this bug #4976 can be fixed in release 2.6.0 :-D

@murong00
Copy link
Contributor

murong00 commented Dec 9, 2019

Both pulsar and bk should support ipv6, such as #5713

@Jennifer88huang-zz
Copy link
Contributor

Some users are expecting Pulsar transaction and KOP in the new release.

@Lanayx
Copy link
Contributor

Lanayx commented Dec 28, 2019

Custom functions runtime

@sijie
Copy link
Member Author

sijie commented May 18, 2020

@codelipenghui we need to make sure Pulsar 2.6.0 is released with JDK 11.

@Anonymitaet
Copy link
Member

@codelipenghui

I've replaced some doc-required tags w/ doc-added since docs have been added by @Huanli-Meng and me.

#4955, #6977: @Huanli-Meng has confirmed no doc needed for these PRs

#6473: Confirmed w/ @tuteng : REST API doc is generated from code automatically, no need to update it manually.

@codelipenghui
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @Anonymitaet

@Anonymitaet
Copy link
Member

Anonymitaet commented Jun 9, 2020

@codelipenghui
The item Custom functions runtime does not have a PR link.

I've searched Custom functions runtime w/ the label milestone 2.6.0 and got the result.

Is [Pulsar Functions] Support config admin CLI in funtions runtime #6681 the one I'm looking for?

@Lanayx
Copy link
Contributor

Lanayx commented Jun 9, 2020

@Anonymitaet Looks like this item made it way to the list because of my proposal (which actually meant custom language runtime like .net) which doesn't seem to even be planned for implementation, so it should be removed.

@Anonymitaet
Copy link
Member

@Lanayx OK, thanks.

@Anonymitaet
Copy link
Member

@codelipenghui Does the last item Work on JDK 11 has a PR link?

@lhotari
Copy link
Member

lhotari commented Jun 10, 2020

I wish that the bug in negative acknowledgements for batch messages (#6869) would also be fixed in 2.6.0 . It would make the improvement for batch message acknowledgements PIP-54 / #6052 more complete.

@codelipenghui
Copy link
Contributor

@lhotari I have started the 2.6.0 candidate, we can plan #6869 in 2.6.1.

@Anonymitaet
Copy link
Member

Anonymitaet commented Jun 15, 2020

@codelipenghui shall we add the following item to 2.6.0 release notes as @sijie points here?

Feature

Admin

or

Feature

2.6.0-SNAPSHOT (under development)

?

@feeblefakie
Copy link

feeblefakie commented Jun 16, 2020

@codelipenghui @sijie @merlimat

I retied the issue I faced with 2.5.0 with pulsar-2.6.0-candidate-1.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/pulsar-users/202003.mbox/%3CCAPDOW74LN3WtdhpG_cgCCSg9MuMmkNV6giCGD5p%3DW1wWji0W7w%40mail.gmail.com%3E

But I'm still facing inconsistent order in between consumers with the default way (splitting range).
I didn't face it if I switch it to use consistent hashing.

So, this seems not resolved yet.
#6554
#6977

If 2.6.0 will be released without fixing the above, consistent hashing should be the default ?

I created a how to reproduce doc, so please take a look.
https://github.com/feeblefakie/misc/blob/master/pulsar/HOW-TO-REPRODUCE.md

@codelipenghui
Copy link
Contributor

@feeblefakie Thanks for your update. #7106 is to fix the order problem in the Key_Shared subscription, It looks there are some problems with the auto-split mechanism. I will take a look later.

@codelipenghui
Copy link
Contributor

codelipenghui commented Jun 18, 2020

close this issue since 2.6.0 was released.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

9 participants