> On Aug. 10, 2017, noon, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote:
> > geode-core/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/internal/Version.java
> > Line 205 (original), 210 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/61540/diff/1/?file=1794364#file1794364line210>
> >
> >     what is the correlation between this and HIGHED_VERSION?
> >     Could we automate this? External file? etc....

HIGHEST_VERSION is used to initialize the array of Version instances.  This 
must be done before any Version instances are created.  I think it would be a 
different ticket, probably a "chore", to rework this class to remove this 
variable.  I don't intend to do that work as part of this ticket.


- Bruce


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/61540/#review182619
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Aug. 9, 2017, 1:45 p.m., Bruce Schuchardt wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/61540/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 9, 2017, 1:45 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for geode, Alexander Murmann, Galen O'Sullivan, Udo Kohlmeyer, 
> and Brian Rowe.
> 
> 
> Bugs: GEODE-3403
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3403
> 
> 
> Repository: geode
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Nabarun has already added a test120 source set in geode-old-versions.  This 
> commit will roll the version on develop to 1.3.0 so that it will have a 
> different version ordinal than test120.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   geode-core/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/internal/Version.java 
> 39e3a3f18d90567a1e3564884760014f6daf1f4c 
>   
> geode-core/src/main/java/org/apache/geode/internal/cache/tier/sockets/CommandInitializer.java
>  9995e4658e5afcb5eb9823913e73aa04d1cdbdbd 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61540/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> precheckin
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bruce Schuchardt
> 
>

Reply via email to