geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nabarun Nag <n...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Date Wed, 29 Aug 2018 21:20:56 GMT
Thank you Sai,
We are also waiting on documentation  to be updated to reflect the changes
made by these resolved JIRAs.
Once that is completed, I believe that we will be ready for the new branch.

Regards
Nabarun Nag

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
>
> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
>
> Sai
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
> > the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
> > hostname
> > validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust
> store.
> >
> > So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> >
> > Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
> >
> > Sai
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> >>
> >> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> >> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> >> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> >> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338> has
> >> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> >>
> >> Does this look right?
> >>
> >> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR was
> >> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
> >> mentioned
> >> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given the
> >> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a update,
> >> maybe on the PR?
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan José Ramos <jramos@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks!!
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Juan,
> >> > >
> >> > > GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch
> >> has
> >> > not
> >> > > yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards
> >> > > Nabarun Nag
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan José Ramos <jramos@pivotal.io
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hello team,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
> >> request
> >> > has
> >> > > > been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> >> > > > Best regards.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >> > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > great!  thanks
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >> > > > > > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it
will
> undergo
> >> all
> >> > > > > > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted
in 1.7.0,
> as
> >> > well
> >> > > > as
> >> > > > > > any related commits
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Regards
> >> > > > > > Nabarun Nag
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >> > > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. 
Someone added
> >> the
> >> > 1.8
> >> > > > > >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that.
 We also
> >> need
> >> > to
> >> > > > see
> >> > > > > >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility.
 If
> >> it's
> >> > in
> >> > > > use
> >> > > > > >> those changes need to be examined and probably
undone on the
> >> > branch
> >> > > if
> >> > > > > >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >> > > > > >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release
process
> was
> >> > > > > >> in-progress,
> >> > > > > >>> and a release branch was already created. But
we stopped
> that
> >> > > process
> >> > > > > mid
> >> > > > > >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> >> > > > > >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with
the current
> >> > develop
> >> > > > > pretty
> >> > > > > >>> soon.
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> Regards
> >> > > > > >>> Nabarun
> >> > > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt
<
> >> > > > > >> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> >> > > > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release
branch that says
> its
> >> > > 1.8.0.
> >> > > > > Is
> >> > > > > >>>> that intentional?
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL
=95;
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> >> > > > > >>>>        new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1,
(byte)8,
> >> (byte)0,
> >> > > > > >>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>> After reading through the weekend,
validating against CN
> as
> >> a
> >> > > > > >>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont
have any further
> >> > concerns
> >> > > > > >>>>> with default JDK's implementation as
expressed[1].
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today
and following with
> >> > GEODE-5338.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> Sai
> >> > > > > >>>>> [1]
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> >> > 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> >> > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai
Boorlagadda <
> >> > > > > >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the
current implementation
> is
> >> > good
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > >>>> needed
> >> > > > > >>>>>> more coverage.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative
cases, I found
> >> something
> >> > > > about
> >> > > > > >>>> JDK's
> >> > > > > >>>>>> default implementation of
> >> > > > > >>>>>> hostname validation which I am
not happy about and so it
> >> > needs a
> >> > > > > >>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> >> > > > > >>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm
to do hostname
> >> > validation.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> I will send out details and seek
to advise on what we
> >> should
> >> > do
> >> > > > in a
> >> > > > > >>>>>> different thread.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> Sai
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Alexander Murmann <
> >> > > > > >> amurmann@pivotal.io
> >> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> To summarize where we are right
now in this discussion,
> I
> >> see
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> following
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread
as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>       - GEODE-5615 - ✅ resolved
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>       - GEODE-5601 - 🏃‍♀️
in progress
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>       - GEODE-5594 - 🏃‍♀️
waiting for PR review
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>       - GEODE-5338 - 🏃‍♀️
waiting for PR review
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>       - GEODE-5619 - 🙄 in
progress in JIRA but has
> merged
> >> > PR.
> >> > > > What
> >> > > > > >> does
> >> > > > > >>>> it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>       mean?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> Is there anything else that
needs to go into 1.7?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> It seems like the best we all
can do is to review Sai's
> >> PRs.
> >> > Is
> >> > > > > that
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> correct?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59
AM, Jens Deppe <
> >> > > jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> >> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'd also like to include
GEODE-5619
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at
3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> >> > > gzhou@pivotal.io
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> +1
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> The release will be
a great one with so many
> historical
> >> > bugs
> >> > > > > fixed.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use
IJ to build and run with latest
> >> > > > build.gradle
> >> > > > > >> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages,
it worked. So this
> >> refactoring
> >> > is
> >> > > > > also
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> success.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018
at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> >> > > > > abaker@pivotal.io>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I most definitely
agree!
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21,
2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> >> > dsmith@pivotal.io>
> >> > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think we
do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> >> > (DistributedTest
> >> > > > > OOMEs)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601
(AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
> fixed
> >> > > before
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> cutting
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch.
It would be better if we don't
> create
> >> a
> >> > > > release
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> branch
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> from
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a point where
we have these systematic issues with
> our
> >> > > > > pipeline.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Juan José Ramos Cassella
> >> > > > Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >> > > > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> >> > > > Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> > > > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> > > > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> > > > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00
GMT
> >> > > > How to upload artifacts:
> >> > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >> > > > How to escalate a ticket:
> >> > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >> > > >
> >> > > > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
twitter]
> >> > > > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >> > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> >> > > > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
plus]
> >> > > > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >> > > > <
> >> > >
> >>
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Juan José Ramos Cassella
> >> > Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >> > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> >> > Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> >> > How to upload artifacts:
> >> > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >> > How to escalate a ticket:
> >> > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >> >
> >> > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> >> > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> >> > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> >> > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >> > <
> >>
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message