Hello team,
Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull request has
been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
Best regards.
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <bschucha...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> great! thanks
>
>
> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will undergo all
> > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> >
> > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0, as well as
> > any related commits
> >
> > Regards
> > Nabarun Nag
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <bschucha...@pivotal.io
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added the 1.8
> >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also need to see
> >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If it's in use
> >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the branch if
> >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> >>
> >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
> >> in-progress,
> >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that process
> mid
> >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current develop
> pretty
> >>> soon.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Nabarun
> >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >> bschucha...@pivotal.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its 1.8.0.
> Is
> >>>> that intentional?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> >>>>
> >>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> >>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8, (byte)0,
> >>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> >>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
> >>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further concerns
> >>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with GEODE-5338.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sai
> >>>>> [1]
> >>>>>
> >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >>>> sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is good and
> >>>> needed
> >>>>>> more coverage.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something about
> >>>> JDK's
> >>>>>> default implementation of
> >>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it needs a
> >>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> >>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname validation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should do in a
> >>>>>> different thread.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sai
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> >> amurm...@pivotal.io
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the
> >>>>>>> following
> >>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - ✅ resolved
> >>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - 🏃♀️ in progress
> >>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - 🏃♀️ waiting for PR review
> >>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - 🏃♀️ waiting for PR review
> >>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - 🙄 in progress in JIRA but has merged PR. What
> >> does
> >>>> it
> >>>>>>> mean?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is
> that
> >>>>>>> correct?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <jde...@pivotal.io>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs
> fixed.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle
> >> and
> >>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is
> also
> >>>>>>>> success.
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> aba...@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest
> OOMEs)
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before
> >>>>>>> cutting
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release
> >>>>>>>> branch
> >>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with our
> pipeline.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> >>
>
>
--
Juan José Ramos Cassella
Senior Technical Support Engineer
Email: jra...@pivotal.io
Office#: +353 21 4238611
Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
How to upload artifacts:
https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
How to escalate a ticket:
https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
[image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
<https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
<https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
<https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
<https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl>
