geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Adding a lucene specific fix to release/1.10.0
Date Thu, 19 Sep 2019 18:48:15 GMT
Thank you for providing some context for what is being voted here.  Based on this information,
I will give my vote as “+0” (imho it may not meet the definition of a “critical fix”,
but seems like the risk is low and the community wants it, so I have no real objection).


> On Sep 19, 2019, at 11:38 AM, Xiaojian Zhou <gzhou@pivotal.io> wrote:
> 
> Owen:
> Here are the answers:
> 
> - Is this fixing an issue of Data loss? Performance degradation?
> Backward-compatibility issue? Availability impacts?  Resource exhaustion
> (threads, disk, cpu, memory, sockets, etc)?
> 
> Without the fix, fields in the inherited attributes cannot be indexed, if
> it's user object. For example, I have a Customer class, which contains
> phoneBook. I have a subclass LocalCustomer to inherit Customer class, then
> I cannot index on phoneBook.
> 
> - Did this issue exist in the previous release?
> Yes.
> 
> - What is the impact of not fixing it?
> Customer will see it and they have seen it.
> 
> - What are the risks of introducing this change so close to shipping?
> No risk. It's standalone fix. Not to impact any where else. And it will be
> backported in future if we did not do it now.
> 
> - How extensively has the fix been tested on develop?
> We introduced several dunit and junit tests.
> 
> - How “sensitive” is the area of code it touches?
> Not sensitive.
> 
> - What new tests have been added?
> New dunit tests and junit tests.
> 
> Regards
> Gester
> 
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:21 AM Owen Nichols <onichols@pivotal.io> wrote:
> 
>>> On Sep 19, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Xiaojian Zhou <gzhou@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Owen:
>>> 
>>> The reason is: it's already cherry-picked to 1.9.
>> 
>> 
>> Can you kindly point me to the specific SHA where this was fixed in 1.9?
>> I am not able to find it...
>> 
>>> 
>>> Gester
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:13 AM Owen Nichols <onichols@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It looks like this has already passed the vote, but I don’t see an
>>>> explanation anywhere in this thread for what makes this a "critical
>> fix".
>>>> 
>>>> As I recall release/1.10.0 was branched at the beginning of August, so
>> it
>>>> seems appropriate to apply a very high level of scrutiny to any
>> continuing
>>>> proposals to further delay the release of 1.10.0.
>>>> 
>>>> - Is this fixing an issue of Data loss? Performance degradation?
>>>> Backward-compatibility issue? Availability impacts?  Resource exhaustion
>>>> (threads, disk, cpu, memory, sockets, etc)?
>>>> - Did this issue exist in the previous release?
>>>> - What is the impact of not fixing it?
>>>> - What are the risks of introducing this change so close to shipping?
>>>> - How extensively has the fix been tested on develop?
>>>> - How “sensitive” is the area of code it touches?
>>>> - What new tests have been added?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sep 19, 2019, at 11:08 AM, Anilkumar Gingade <agingade@pivotal.io>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:02 AM Eric Shu <eshu@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:59 AM Benjamin Ross <bross@pivotal.io>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag <nnag@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:49 AM Xiaojian Zhou <gzhou@pivotal.io>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I want to merge GEODE-7208, which is lucene specific
fix
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The fix will enable indexing on inherited attributes
in user
>> object.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> revision 4ec87419d456748a7d853e979c90ad4e301b2405
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> Gester
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message