Thanks!!
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <n...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Juan,
>
> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch has not
> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
>
> Regards
> Nabarun Nag
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan José Ramos <jra...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> > 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>
> >
>
--
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>
