geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dick Cavender <dcaven...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: Propose including GEODE-7178 in 1.10
Date Fri, 13 Sep 2019 22:50:26 GMT
This has been merged to release/1.10.0.



On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:14 AM Dick Cavender <dcavender@pivotal.io> wrote:

> We have 3 plus one votes so we'll merge this as soon as the PR checks
> complete.
>
> -Dick
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:25 AM Blake Bender <bbender@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
>> +1, IMO this really needs to go in.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Blake
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:30 PM Anthony Baker <abaker@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>
>> > My understanding is that this portion of the protocol is determined by
>> > instanceof checks, not the ordinal version.  The messages from the java
>> > client went through a different code path than messages from the native
>> > client.  So java clients using ordinal 45 still work (that’s why our
>> > backwards compatibility tests don’t fail).
>> >
>> > Anthony
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Sep 12, 2019, at 2:34 PM, Dan Smith <dsmith@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > +1 for getting this in 1.10.
>> > >
>> > > I am curious though - is the native client behaving like an older
>> > versions
>> > > of the java client, or is this totally unique behavior for the native
>> > > client? Is there some integration test that we are missing here?
>> > >
>> > > -Dan
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:52 AM Michael Oleske <moleske@pivotal.io>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Here is the Pull Request for the cherry pick as requested
>> > >> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4049
>> > >>
>> > >> -michael
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:28 AM Dick Cavender <dcavender@pivotal.io
>> >
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Hi Michael, thank you for bringing your concern and fixing this
>> issue.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Geode's release process dictates a time-based schedule <
>> > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Release+Schedule>
>> to
>> > >> cut
>> > >>> release branches.  The “critical fixes” rule does allow critical
>> fixes
>> > to
>> > >>> be brought to the release branch by proposal on the dev list, as
you
>> > have
>> > >>> done here.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> If there is consensus from the Geode community that your proposed
>> > change
>> > >>> satisfies the “critical fixes” rule, I will be happy to bring
it to
>> the
>> > >>> 1.10.0 release branch.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Due to the complexity of this change, could please open a PR against
>> > >>> release/1.10.0 containing the exact changes you want to merge?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Regards
>> > >>>
>> > >>> -Dick
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Anthony Baker <abaker@pivotal.io>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> +1 yes please!
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> On Sep 12, 2019, at 10:11 AM, Michael Oleske <moleske@pivotal.io>
>> > >>> wrote:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Hi Geode Devs!
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> I'd like to propose including the fix for GEODE-7178. 
This
>> resolves
>> > >> an
>> > >>>>> issue that Ivan (https://markmail.org/message/dwwac42xmpo4xb2e)
>> ran
>> > >>>> into in
>> > >>>>> 1.10 RC1.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> SHA: 91176d61df64bf1390cdba7b1cdc2b40cdfaba3a
>> > >>>>> Link to GitHub:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/91176d61df64bf1390cdba7b1cdc2b40cdfaba3a
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Thanks!
>> > >>>>> -michael
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>

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