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] and the NEW Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch has been created
Date Thu, 13 Sep 2018 16:47:46 GMT
Thank you Patrick. Please do send a notification email once this is
reverted in the release/1.7.0 branch.
Thank you Jinmei for putting the fix for GEODE-5727 into release/1.7.0.
However the GEODE ticket is still in open state. Can it be closed?

Regards
Nabarun Nag


On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 9:21 AM Patrick Rhomberg <prhomberg@pivotal.io>
wrote:

> Sounds like we have a plan!  I'll take it upon myself to do the revert.
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 to revert and fix on develop
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018, 4:43 PM Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Reverting them on release/1.7.0 will bring it to the previous status
> quo,
> > > how all previous releases were done. I don't think anyone will build
> > > release/1.7.0 repeatedly, hence there is no advantage of making build
> > > process faster for that branch.
> > > Whereas on develop a more appropriate solution can be incorporated
> after
> > > discussions.
> > >
> > > Is it acceptable?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Nabarun Nag
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:37 PM Patrick Rhomberg <prhomberg@pivotal.io
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Okay.  So that information is definitely coming from the
> > > > GemFireVersion.properties file, which explains this issue.  Either
> > > > reverting the previous GEODE-5600 changes or resolving merge
> conflicts
> > > from
> > > > PR 2457 would address this issue.
> > > >
> > > > My concern remains about the .buildinfo file, however.    Is the
> > > .buildinfo
> > > > redundant at this point and should be?  Should it always contain the
> > > > necessary information, with the GemFireVersion.properties file
> > acquiring
> > > > the source information from .buildinfo rather than fetching it again
> > > > itself?  Is .buildinfo a convention in distributions with which I am
> > just
> > > > myself unfamiliar?
> > > >
> > > > The path we take here is fundamentally linked to how we want to
> > approach
> > > > GEODE-5600, and with PR 2457 currently open, we could choose any of
> > these
> > > > routes to go.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > @patrick
> > > > > if you build geode release branch 1.7.0 "./gradlew clean build
> > > > > -Dskip.tests=true -xdocs -xjavadoc" and start gfsh from
> > > > > geode-assembly/build/install/apache-geode/bin/gfsh
> > > > > And then type `version --full` you get this
> > > > >
> > > > > gfsh>version --full
> > > > > Build-Date: 2018-09-12 16:07:03 -0700
> > > > > Build-Id: nnag 0
> > > > > Build-Java-Version: 1.8.0_181
> > > > > Build-Platform: Mac OS X 10.13.6 x86_64
> > > > > Product-Name: Apache Geode
> > > > > Product-Version: 1.7.0
> > > > > Source-Date: 2018-09-12 16:07:03 -0700
> > > > > *Source-Repository: unknown*
> > > > > *Source-Revision: unknown*
> > > > > Native version: native code unavailable
> > > > > Running on: /10.118.19.23, 8 cpu(s), x86_64 Mac OS X 10.13.6
> > > > >
> > > > > As you can notice that Source-Repository and Source-Revision is
> > > missing.
> > > > It
> > > > > should contain the info from the buildinfo file present in
> > > > > geode-assemble/.buildinfo file. It contains the following
> > > > >
> > > > > #
> > > > > #Wed Sep 12 16:07:56 PDT 2018
> > > > > Source-Date=2018-09-11 15\:56\:48 -0700
> > > > > Source-Revision=c637193aa61abdfd236ae36b6d9a228fc1e84bcd
> > > > > Source-Repository=release/1.7.0
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope this helps
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 3:51 PM Patrick Rhomberg <
> > prhomberg@pivotal.io
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm happy to work on those reverts, although if Anthony could
> > > elaborate
> > > > > on
> > > > > > where exactly the version information was missing, that assuage
> > some
> > > of
> > > > > my
> > > > > > own worries as to whether it's the right approach.  It's still
> not
> > > > clear
> > > > > to
> > > > > > me where .buildinfo is intended to be consumed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes Alexander, we are still waiting on the build info reverts
> > from
> > > > > > Patrick,
> > > > > > > so, I think that this can be put into release/1.7.0.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sure Jinmei, you can go ahead and merge the change into
> > > release/1.7.0
> > > > > > > branch too when you merge the PR. Please do close the fixed
> > version
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > JIRA as 1.7.0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:50 PM Alexander Murmann <
> > > > amurmann@pivotal.io
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > While there is a workaround this looks like a highly
visible
> > bug
> > > > > with a
> > > > > > > > fairly safe fix. I am in favor of merging, since the
branch
> is
> > > > still
> > > > > > > > distressed anyways.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Other opinions?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Jinmei Liao <
> > jiliao@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Should we include the fix for GEODE-5727 in the
1.7 release
> > as
> > > > > well?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Without the fix, the command "export cluster-config
> > > > > > > > --zip-file-name=x.zip"
> > > > > > > > > would fail with NPE, user has to use "export
cluster-config
> > > > > > > > > --zip-file-name=./x.zip" in order for export
to work.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > PR for this fix is ready and could be merged
soon.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jinmei
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:12 AM Patrick Rhomberg
<
> > > > > > > prhomberg@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure PR 2457 will help with an ignored
> .buildinfo,
> > > but
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > as to why .buildinfo would be getting ignored
by
> anything,
> > > > > either.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > PR 2457 deals with the still-needs-to-be-renamed
> > > > > > > > > GemFireVersion.properties
> > > > > > > > > > file and when it is generated.  Previously,
it was
> whenever
> > > the
> > > > > git
> > > > > > > > index
> > > > > > > > > > changed, which was too frequent.  Not it
is whenever the
> > > source
> > > > > > > > > parameters
> > > > > > > > > > are passed on the command-line with the
build, which has
> > > > > presented
> > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > outside the Concourse pipeline.  PR 2457
splits the
> > > difference,
> > > > > > > > > > regenerating the file anytime the SHA changes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The only interaction with .buildinfo that
I can see is
> that
> > > if
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > build
> > > > > > > > > > was run on a machine that was missing git,
it would
> attempt
> > > to
> > > > > read
> > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > instead from .buildinfo when creating the
> > > > > GemFireVersion.properties
> > > > > > > > file.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I guess I don't fully understand the problem
Anthony has
> > > called
> > > > > > out.
> > > > > > > > > Where
> > > > > > > > > > is it exactly that information previously
gathered from
> > > > > .buildinfo
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > > missing?  And are we certain that it was
indeed pulling
> > from
> > > > > > > .buildinfo
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > not the aforementioned GemFireVersion.properties?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Alexander
Murmann <
> > > > > > > > amurmann@pivotal.io
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It seems like that PR doesn't address
the missing SHA
> > issue
> > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > am
> > > > > > > > > > > not aware of any proposals to properly
fix this. How
> > viable
> > > > is
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > revert
> > > > > > > > > > > the relevant Gradle build changes on
support/1.7?
> > > > > > > > > > > We could continue make the new Gradle
approach work
> with
> > > our
> > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > process on develop and hopefully release
1.8 with these
> > > > > changes.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Are there any other proposals to unblock
this?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Anthony
Baker <
> > > > > > abaker@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Slight clarification—the issue
I mentioned is when a
> > user
> > > > > > builds
> > > > > > > > > Geode
> > > > > > > > > > > > from the source distribution.
 The source
> distribution
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > manager creates has the correct
.buildinfo file, it’s
> > > just
> > > > > > > ignored
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > build.  In short, the release
manager can’t work
> around
> > > the
> > > > > > > > problem.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Does [1] help with this?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anthony
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2457
<
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/
> > > > > > > > > > > > geode/pull/2457>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 11, 2018, at 3:16
PM, Alexander Murmann <
> > > > > > > > > amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the consensus on the
version info issue
> > Anthony
> > > is
> > > > > > > calling
> > > > > > > > > > out?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone have a proposal for
fixing this for this
> > > release?
> > > > > > Should
> > > > > > > > > > Nabarun
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the release manager manually
correct this for the
> > > release
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > find a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > permanent solution for 1.8?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 12:33
PM, Anthony Baker <
> > > > > > > > abaker@pivotal.io
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Unfortunately it would
require a fix to the
> > build—it’s
> > > > not
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > producing
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> the release candidate.
It’s when a user builds
> from
> > > the
> > > > > > source
> > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> the version info is ignored.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Anthony
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Sep 10, 2018,
at 10:02 AM, Nabarun Nag <
> > > > > nnag@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hello Anthony,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I plan to do that
while creating the release
> > > candidate.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> concerns raised on
the release branch, I will
> start
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > process
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> soon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Regards
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Nabarun Nag
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Sep 10,
2018 at 8:51 AM Anthony Baker <
> > > > > > > > > abaker@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Looks good Naba!
 Only thing I see right now is
> > that
> > > > > > > building
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> source distribution
does not use the .buildinfo
> > > file,
> > > > > > > leaving
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> version
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> string empty.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Anthony
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On Sep 7,
2018, at 9:15 AM, Nabarun Nag <
> > > > > nnag@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> CORRECTION:
if '*no*' concerns are raised, we
> > will
> > > > > start
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> voting
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> for the release
candidate soon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Regrads
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Fri,
Sep 7, 2018 at 9:08 AM Nabarun Nag <
> > > > > > > nnag@pivotal.io
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Hello
Geode Dev Community,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> We have
created a new release branch for
> Apache
> > > > Geode
> > > > > > > 1.7.0
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> "release/1.7.0"
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Previous
branch was deleted and has been
> > replaced
> > > > > with a
> > > > > > > > fresh
> > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Please
do review and raise any concern with
> the
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> If concerns
are raised, we will start with the
> > > > voting
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> candidate
soon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Regards
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Nabarun
Nag
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Regards
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Nabarun Nag
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Cheers
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jinmei
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Regards
> > > Nabarun Nag
> > >
> >
>

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