We have 3 plus one votes so we'll merge this as soon as the PR checks complete.
-Dick On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:25 AM Blake Bender <bben...@pivotal.io> wrote: > +1, IMO this really needs to go in. > > Thanks, > > Blake > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:30 PM Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > My understanding is that this portion of the protocol is determined by > > instanceof checks, not the ordinal version. The messages from the java > > client went through a different code path than messages from the native > > client. So java clients using ordinal 45 still work (that’s why our > > backwards compatibility tests don’t fail). > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > On Sep 12, 2019, at 2:34 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > > > +1 for getting this in 1.10. > > > > > > I am curious though - is the native client behaving like an older > > versions > > > of the java client, or is this totally unique behavior for the native > > > client? Is there some integration test that we are missing here? > > > > > > -Dan > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:52 AM Michael Oleske <mole...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Here is the Pull Request for the cherry pick as requested > > >> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4049 > > >> > > >> -michael > > >> > > >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:28 AM Dick Cavender <dcaven...@pivotal.io> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Michael, thank you for bringing your concern and fixing this > issue. > > >>> > > >>> Geode's release process dictates a time-based schedule < > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Release+Schedule> > to > > >> cut > > >>> release branches. The “critical fixes” rule does allow critical > fixes > > to > > >>> be brought to the release branch by proposal on the dev list, as you > > have > > >>> done here. > > >>> > > >>> If there is consensus from the Geode community that your proposed > > change > > >>> satisfies the “critical fixes” rule, I will be happy to bring it to > the > > >>> 1.10.0 release branch. > > >>> > > >>> Due to the complexity of this change, could please open a PR against > > >>> release/1.10.0 containing the exact changes you want to merge? > > >>> > > >>> Regards > > >>> > > >>> -Dick > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> +1 yes please! > > >>>> > > >>>>> On Sep 12, 2019, at 10:11 AM, Michael Oleske <mole...@pivotal.io> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Hi Geode Devs! > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I'd like to propose including the fix for GEODE-7178. This > resolves > > >> an > > >>>>> issue that Ivan (https://markmail.org/message/dwwac42xmpo4xb2e) > ran > > >>>> into in > > >>>>> 1.10 RC1. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> SHA: 91176d61df64bf1390cdba7b1cdc2b40cdfaba3a > > >>>>> Link to GitHub: > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/91176d61df64bf1390cdba7b1cdc2b40cdfaba3a > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks! > > >>>>> -michael > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > >
