GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a hostname validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust store.
So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594. Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR. Sai On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <amurm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets: > > GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR: > https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368. > GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346 > GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338> has open > PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244. > > Does this look right? > > The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR was > down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai mentioned > yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given the > downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a update, > maybe on the PR? > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan José Ramos <jra...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > 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/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a > > 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%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> > > >
