Thank you for providing some context for what is being voted here. Based on this information, I will give my vote as “+0” (imho it may not meet the definition of a “critical fix”, but seems like the risk is low and the community wants it, so I have no real objection).
> On Sep 19, 2019, at 11:38 AM, Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > Owen: > Here are the answers: > > - Is this fixing an issue of Data loss? Performance degradation? > Backward-compatibility issue? Availability impacts? Resource exhaustion > (threads, disk, cpu, memory, sockets, etc)? > > Without the fix, fields in the inherited attributes cannot be indexed, if > it's user object. For example, I have a Customer class, which contains > phoneBook. I have a subclass LocalCustomer to inherit Customer class, then > I cannot index on phoneBook. > > - Did this issue exist in the previous release? > Yes. > > - What is the impact of not fixing it? > Customer will see it and they have seen it. > > - What are the risks of introducing this change so close to shipping? > No risk. It's standalone fix. Not to impact any where else. And it will be > backported in future if we did not do it now. > > - How extensively has the fix been tested on develop? > We introduced several dunit and junit tests. > > - How “sensitive” is the area of code it touches? > Not sensitive. > > - What new tests have been added? > New dunit tests and junit tests. > > Regards > Gester > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:21 AM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >>> On Sep 19, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>> >>> Owen: >>> >>> The reason is: it's already cherry-picked to 1.9. >> >> >> Can you kindly point me to the specific SHA where this was fixed in 1.9? >> I am not able to find it... >> >>> >>> Gester >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:13 AM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> >> wrote: >>> >>>> It looks like this has already passed the vote, but I don’t see an >>>> explanation anywhere in this thread for what makes this a "critical >> fix". >>>> >>>> As I recall release/1.10.0 was branched at the beginning of August, so >> it >>>> seems appropriate to apply a very high level of scrutiny to any >> continuing >>>> proposals to further delay the release of 1.10.0. >>>> >>>> - Is this fixing an issue of Data loss? Performance degradation? >>>> Backward-compatibility issue? Availability impacts? Resource exhaustion >>>> (threads, disk, cpu, memory, sockets, etc)? >>>> - Did this issue exist in the previous release? >>>> - What is the impact of not fixing it? >>>> - What are the risks of introducing this change so close to shipping? >>>> - How extensively has the fix been tested on develop? >>>> - How “sensitive” is the area of code it touches? >>>> - What new tests have been added? >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sep 19, 2019, at 11:08 AM, Anilkumar Gingade <aging...@pivotal.io> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:02 AM Eric Shu <e...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:59 AM Benjamin Ross <br...@pivotal.io> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag <n...@pivotal.io> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:49 AM Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I want to merge GEODE-7208, which is lucene specific fix >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The fix will enable indexing on inherited attributes in user >> object. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> revision 4ec87419d456748a7d853e979c90ad4e301b2405 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> Gester >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
