geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Goller <sgol...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Date Tue, 04 Sep 2018 23:09:19 GMT
Reverting GEODE-5591 results in code that can produce an infinite loop, so
I don't feel that's a viable option. I feel as though the code treats bind
exceptions as transient occurrences, but my direct experience with them
leads me to the opposite conclusion. I don't believe a long wait time is
going to change the situation, especially since a TCP timeout scenario can
take up to 30 minutes to resolve itself. I believe it is better to fail
fast and hard, so I would suggest either failing immediately or a very
short timeout, say 5 or 10 seconds at most.

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