From dev-return-30701-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@geode.apache.org Thu Feb 21 00:13:02 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id BB98818075F for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 01:13:01 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 57219 invoked by uid 500); 21 Feb 2019 00:13:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geode.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@geode.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geode.apache.org Received: (qmail 57189 invoked by uid 99); 21 Feb 2019 00:13:00 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:13:00 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 9FAEAC2D77 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:12:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.301 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.301 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=2, KHOP_DYNAMIC=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NHzezrweVqMe for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:12:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx0b-00296801.pphosted.com (mx0b-00296801.pphosted.com [148.163.153.148]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 690A062465 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:12:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pps.filterd (m0114585.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00296801.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1L0BofZ021189 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:12:55 GMT Received: from mail-lj1-f200.google.com (mail-lj1-f200.google.com [209.85.208.200]) by mx0b-00296801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qpap53hdr-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 00:12:54 +0000 Received: by mail-lj1-f200.google.com with SMTP id v17so1425099ljg.4 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:12:54 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=/FiP0bayOC6uYvL1EDJJ2k26VbwUICYzAjreIAEdax4=; b=dWysWRjX49pkHzC0EeOnxbhfx3+a+H6TN5vsh8ZpNbBRn3Fl2Ni6t7zOrQ+N7Clm0A cPQb8BWjg+pyvOOUMOWpW7oq6QTtHklvbnot/AbLyMjGgjn4RHKlGwbfHYjnx94K/e4v sRz109QLF77gw4z8VNi7+9j7jVe1MxjJAUqZ0GSVxHEoqbIA8vJOOGxUZat/dMTYqd5f 9jdh4XxvY4S6Q+/7j5cLmHElgfvInYvuaN59QYqBAbs3gmbOQKaAql4vqUBRFFTmaF4G oOyXTh2jHGEj+Y1yFb0yD650x5F3cYyZKwsrZyagHf7C4OmNK9jOPy0kTZBaIMNktJcI SPtg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuY1HTvJIKM8ThF9rzARSYL+/oUb3fXEDZtXvfaXmNKmHvW9RuzW e5D3ACtH9uyHRg923buGNPgPcirKMsJMU2kbtxqddjtMvs4mmfUHX6qQIMnE7Te5k5kzowf/lKl R9HOFKReh/BlS2CvkAsn2eXNeh5FI5SNgOnqG16PfvLUAiFw32c7LpmY= X-Received: by 2002:a19:95c1:: with SMTP id x184mr21416415lfd.155.1550707972482; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:12:52 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Ia9eG4QtZYrySs7i1qX6vVqMKOpiylgylT3ChX2ktAQpLnduuNb6RL6TdYYDTSs3HlmHrcLcCxt377Hn4fxpsY= X-Received: by 2002:a19:95c1:: with SMTP id x184mr21416397lfd.155.1550707971917; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:12:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1d643254-8ed6-da7a-e02e-e9eadabf6723@pivotal.io> <2b967aa1-b691-c48c-e785-a144a7d764b5@pivotal.io> In-Reply-To: From: Patrick Rhomberg Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:12:40 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Geode 1.9 Release Manager To: dev@geode.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d130a305825c5565" X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-02-20_19:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902210001 --000000000000d130a305825c5565 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I would love for GEODE-6399 / PR #3190 to be included in this release. This PR resolves the earlier issues we had delegating dependencies to the geode-all-bom BOM and massively reduces the POMs for each module we publish. As it is, the published POMs are functional, and I understand that such things are rarely human-inspected, but given that we haven't introduced the into our maven artifacts yet, I'd just as soon have it done right when we do. Not really a show-stopping issue, but it does involve our forward-facing artifacts. On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 2:20 PM Sai Boorlagadda wrote: > Thanks Bruce. I will chery-pick this commit onto the new release branch. > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 1:06 PM Bruce Schuchardt > wrote: > > > The fix for Geode-6369 has been pushed to develop. This needs to go in > > the 1.9 release as it fixes some serious issues in auto-reconnect > > including a distributed deadlock. > > > > On 2/15/19 2:15 PM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote: > > > There are about 8[1] issues in JIRA that are in > > open/in-progress/re-opened > > > status for 1.9.0. > > > Can I request all the devs to reflect JIRA with current status? > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-6107?jql=project%20%3D%20GEODE%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.9.0 > > > > > > Sai > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:56 PM Sai Boorlagadda < > > sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks Dave. I keep a note to include Geode Native. > > >> > > >> As we are including only a source release for Geode Native > > >> do we need to create a release branch? Or just tag it? > > >> > > >> Though we will eventually be tagging Geode & Geode Examples repos. > > >> So until it gets released I think as a place holder I can go ahead > still > > >> create a release branch for Geode Native? > > >> > > >> Sai > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:51 AM Dave Barnes > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Sai, > > >>> The Geode 1.8 release included (for the first time) a source snapshot > > of > > >>> the geode-native repo. > > >>> As far as I know, the same treatment would be in order for v1.9. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:01 AM Bruce Schuchardt < > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> I would like to get GEODE-6369 into the next release but that can be > > >>>> done in a cherry-pick after I finish testing. The changes are in in > > >>>> discovery, joining the cluster and in failure detection so they've > > >>>> needed extensive testing. > > >>>> > > >>>> On 2/15/19 7:53 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote: > > >>>>> I am planning to cut the1.9 release branch today after merging this > > >>>>> PR #3195 which is reverting changes to GEODE-6334 & GEODE-6345. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Is there anything other than that I should be aware of? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Here is the list of issues that were requested to be included into > > >>> 1.9. > > >>>>> If there is any plan to merge any of these today let me know and > > >>>>> I can cut the branch after that. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> GEODE-6334 - CachePerfStats operation count stats may wrap to > > negative > > >>>>> values > > >>>>> > > >>>>> GEODE-6345 - StatSamplerStats jvmPauses stat may wrap to negative > > >>> value > > >>>>> GEODE-6369 - Cache-creation failure after a successful > auto-reconnect > > >>>>> causes subsequent NPE > > >>>>> > > >>>>> GEODE-6391 - Event IDs must be included in the PartitioneRegion > > >>> messages > > >>>>> GEODE-6404 - review use of computeIfAbsent across the code base > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> (experimental and dropped) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> GEODE-6393 - Replace synchronization lock with AtomicReference for > > >>>>> InternalLocator > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> - > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Sai > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:21 PM Sai Boorlagadda < > > >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> I didn't mean blocking a release but the release process > (including > > >>>>>> cutting the branch). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I thought there was a consensus about strictly cutting a > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> branch[1] with our new fixed minor release cadence and > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> only allow critical fixes. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I assumed that any critical fixes that are allowed onto the > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> release branch are the ones that are identified on the branch > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> after it is cut and not the ones that are already known. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Correct me if my understanding is wrong. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> [1] > > >>>>>> > > >>> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d36a63c3794d13506ecad3d52a2aca938dcf0f8509b61860bbbc50cd@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E > > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:00 PM Nabarun Nag > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> I could not find any DISCUSS mails about not blocking a release. > I > > >>> may > > >>>> be > > >>>>>>> wrong, I apologize for that but could point me to the mail / > > >>>> documentation > > >>>>>>> about the release management. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Regards > > >>>>>>> Naba > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:52 AM Sai Boorlagadda < > > >>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Did we not agreed that we won't be blocking a release to include > > >>> fixes > > >>>>>>> as > > >>>>>>>> we are in a fixed release schedule? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:36 AM Alexander Murmann < > > >>>> amurmann@apache.org > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Usually I am a proponent of cutting a branch and then fixing > > >>> things > > >>>> on > > >>>>>>>>> there where things are more stable. In this case we seem to > have > > a > > >>>>>>> large > > >>>>>>>>> number of fairly serious concerns. Do we think the cost of > > putting > > >>>>>>> this > > >>>>>>>>> many fixes on develop + the release branch out-weights the > > >>> benefit of > > >>>>>>>> less > > >>>>>>>>> risk of new issues being introduced? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Thoughts? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Thank you, Sai for taking over! > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:32 AM Sai Boorlagadda < > > >>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I volunteer to be the release manager for 1.9. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sai > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 7:48 PM Alexander Murmann < > > >>>>>>> amurmann@apache.org > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> If there are no other takers, I can act as release manager > for > > >>> 1.9 > > >>>>>>>> and > > >>>>>>>>>> will > > >>>>>>>>>>> cut a release branch this week. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 1:50 PM Alexander Murmann < > > >>>>>>>> amurmann@apache.org > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone! > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> February 1st is approaching rapidly which means it's almost > > >>>>>>> time to > > >>>>>>>>> cut > > >>>>>>>>>>>> the 1.9 release. Who is interested in being the release > > manager > > >>>>>>> for > > >>>>>>>>>> 1.9? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you! > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > --000000000000d130a305825c5565--