geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anilkumar Gingade <aging...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Date Tue, 04 Sep 2018 23:43:17 GMT
Its not gfsh specific. Its in the Gateway receiver start.

It looks like the changes with GEODE-5591 still hit the earlier issue (it
was fixing) if the port is same as the port returned by "getPortToStart()",
that was removed. I may be wrong.

-Anil.


On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:39 PM Sai Boorlagadda <sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
wrote:

> So the issue is that it takes longer to start than previous releases?
> Also, is this wait time only when using Gfsh to create gateway-receiver?
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:03 PM Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Currently we have a minor issue in the release branch as pointed out by
> > Barry O.
> > We will wait till a resolution is figured out for this issue.
> >
> > Steps:
> > 1. create locator
> > 2. start server --name=server1 --server-port=40404
> > 3. start server --name=server2 --server-port=40405
> > 4. create gateway-receiver --member=server1
> > 5. create gateway-receiver --member=server2 `This gets stuck for 2
> minutes`
> >
> > Is the 2 minute wait time acceptable? Should we document it? When we
> revert
> > GEODE-5591, this issue does not happen.
> >
> > Regards
> > Nabarun Nag
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Status Update on release process for 1.7.0
> > > - checkPom files are being modified to have version as 1.7.0 instead of
> > > 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT
> > > - gradle.properties file has been modified to reflect 1.7.0 as the
> > version.
> > > - Version.java has been reverted to remove all changes corresponding to
> > > 1.8.0
> > > - CommandInitializer.java has been reverted to remove changes for 1.8.0
> > > - LuceneIndexCommandsJUnitTest.java has been modified to change
> > > Version.GEODE_180 to GEODE_170
> > > - LuceneIndexCommands.java has been modified to change
> Version.GEODE_180
> > > to GEODE_170
> > > -TXCommitMessage.java has been modified to change Version.GEODE_180 to
> > > GEODE_170
> > >
> > > I will be getting in touch with the individual developers to verify my
> > > changes.
> > > The branch will be update once we get a green light on these changes.
> > >
> > > Still need updates on these tickets:
> > >
> > > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
> > > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
> > > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
> > > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
> > >
> > > These tickets have commits into develop but they are still open with
> fix
> > > version as 1.8.0
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Nabarun Nag
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:38 PM Dale Emery <demery@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I have resolved GEODE-5254
> > >>
> > >> Dale
> > >>
> > >> > On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Nabarun Nag <nnag@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Requesting status update on the following JIRA tickets. These
> tickets
> > >> have
> > >> > commits into develop against its name but the status is still open
/
> > >> > unresolved.
> > >> >
> > >> > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
> > >> > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
> > >> > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
> > >> > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
> > >> > GEODE-5254 - [Dale Emery]
> > >> >
> > >> > GEODE-4794 - [Sai]
> > >> > GEODE-5594 - [Sai]
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards
> > >> > Nabarun Nag
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Please continue using 1.7.0 as a fix version in JIRA till the
email
> > >> comes
> > >> >> in that the 1.7.0 release branch has be cut.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Changing the fixed version for the following tickets to 1.7.0
from
> > >> 1.8.0
> > >> >> as these fixes will be included in the 1.7.0 release
> > >> >>
> > >> >> GEODE-5671
> > >> >> GEODE-5662
> > >> >> GEODE-5660
> > >> >> GEODE-5652
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Regards
> > >> >> Nabarun Nag
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> A new feature of get/set cluster config was added as new feature
> to
> > >> gfsh.
> > >> >>> This needs to be added to the documentation.
> > >> >>> Once this is done, the branch will be ready.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Regards
> > >> >>> Nabarun
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:15 PM Alexander Murmann <
> > >> amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>> wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> Nabarun, do you still see anything blocking cutting the
release
> at
> > >> this
> > >> >>>> point?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Maybe we can even get a pipeline going today? 😳
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> > >> >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>> We can go ahead and cut 1.7 with out GEODE-5338 as
I don't have
> > the
> > >> >>>> code
> > >> >>>>> ready.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> GEODE-5594, adds a new flag to enable hostname validation
and is
> > >> >>>> disabled
> > >> >>>>> by default so we are good with changes that are already
merged
> and
> > >> >>>>> documentation for GEODE-5594 is ready merged.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Naba, after the branch is cut we should delete windows
jobs from
> > the
> > >> >>>> branch
> > >> >>>>> before we create the pipeline for 1.7.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Apologies for holding up the release.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Sai.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 10:23 AM Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get
closed before
> > >> >>>> cutting
> > >> >>>>> the
> > >> >>>>>> branch.
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> Regards
> > >> >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker
<
> > abaker@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these
changes to give us
> > more
> > >> >>>> time
> > >> >>>>> to
> > >> >>>>>>> review and complete the work.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Thoughts?
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Anthony
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda
<
> > >> >>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR
changes the existing
> > >> >>>> behavior
> > >> >>>>>> and
> > >> >>>>>>>> is not acceptable.
> > >> >>>>>>>> Working on changing the implementation
to have a default
> value
> > >> >>>>> derived
> > >> >>>>>>>> based on how user
> > >> >>>>>>>> wants to configure SSL.
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> Sai
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> 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>
> > >> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> >>>>>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353
87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> >>>>>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#:
+1 877 477 2269
> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >> >>>> <(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>
> > >> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
<+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#:
+1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >> <(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
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>

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