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 18:14:10 GMT
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