All issues targeted for 1.3.0 have been resolved. I will cut a release candidate shortly.
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 11:18 AM Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Hi All, > Thanks for all your efforts in resolving a whopping 51 issues in the past > week! Since I did not hear any concerns, I removed 1.3 label from some of > the issues mentioned below, along with some CI failure issues. This now > brings us down to only 2: > GEODE-3247: Improve OQL expression execution > GEODE-3743: Deprecate option for manual restart of Gateway senders > > For GEODE-3247 the implementation is complete, documentation pending. I > hope to cut the release branch and have a release candidate early next week. > > Thanks! > Swapnil. > > > On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 9:31 AM Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> We actually have gone up from 11 to 15 issues tagged for release with >> 1.3. Based on recent activity (or lack there of) and features not related >> to Security, I think we should not wait for the following issues for 1.3: >> (I will remove 1.3 labels for these if there are no concerns in 72 hours) >> GEODE-3563 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3563> SSL socket >> handling problems in TCPConduit run >> GEODE-3521 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3521> Allow >> region set op to bootstrap JTA >> GEODE-3622 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3622> The first >> HeapLRU evictions on large region can consume high amounts of CPU >> GEODE-3705 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3705> New client >> protocol: Implement handshake >> GEODE-3682 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3682> Trace >> displaying incorrect indexes being used >> GEODE-3637 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3637> >> configureClientSSLSocket >> call can block Acceptor thread >> >> Which brings us down to the following 8: >> GEODE-2817 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2817> Have the >> function author determine what permissions the function execution requires >> GEODE-2919 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2919> Provide >> finer grained security >> GEODE-3190 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3190> CI >> failure: >> org.apache.geode.internal.cache.Bug48182JUnitTest.test48182WithRegionDestroy >> GEODE-3495 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3495> Review and >> update dependencies for 1.3.0 >> GEODE-3621 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3621> Revert >> breaking changes in SecurityManager >> GEODE-3628 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3628> fix >> required permission for lucene query >> GEODE-3685 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3685> MBean >> wrappers are not always applied correctly >> GEODE-3723 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3723> Reconsider >> using Optional<String> as the parameter for getRequiredPermissions >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:11 PM Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io> >> wrote: >> >>> I took preliminary look and tagged some issues for 1.3.0. >>> Looks like we have 11 issues remaining: >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=92&projectKey=GEODE&view=planning&selectedIssue=GEODE-2788&versions=visible&selectedVersion=12340669 >>> >>> Please take a look at these issues to see which are not critical to fix >>> in 1.3 and also look at issues assigned to you/reported by you to see if >>> they must be tagged for 1.3. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:36 AM Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Excellent! Can you review the open issues currently tagged for 1.3.0 >>>> (I think it’s probably not accurate) and gather consensus on any remaining >>>> changes needed? >>>> >>>> Anthony >>>> >>>> > On Sep 12, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Sound good. >>>> > >>>> > I would like to volunteer to be the release manager. >>>> > >>>> > Thanks! >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:24 PM Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Hi all, >>>> >> >>>> >> I think we should begin discussing scope and timeline for the 1.3.0 >>>> >> release. I know we’re still finalizing 1.2.1, but we released 1.2.0 >>>> almost >>>> >> two months ago and we’ve fixed almost 200 issues in that time. IMO, >>>> we >>>> >> should complete 1.2.1 and then immediately turn around 1.3.0. >>>> >> >>>> >> Thoughts? Any volunteers for release manager? >>>> >> >>>> >> Anthony >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>>
