geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Blake Bender <bben...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: Propose including GEODE-7178 in 1.10
Date Fri, 13 Sep 2019 17:25:37 GMT
+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