+1

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io>
wrote:

> +1 for maintaining backwards compatibility.
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Mark Bretl <asf.mbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 for backward compatibility with Geode releases.
> >
> > --Mark
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 to Dan
> > > +1 to Bruce - the distributedTest extensions for backward compatibility
> > > would great
> > >
> > > > On Nov 1, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Bruce Schuchardt <bschucha...@pivotal.io
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > I still have the backward-compatibility distributedTest extensions
> that
> > > I could contribute.  The extension lets you spawn a VM running an older
> > > version and interact with it.  You can even run a unit test in the
> > spawned
> > > VM.
> > > >
> > > > I have one test that sets up a server using the current version and
> > then
> > > spawns a client unit test running under an older version.  The client
> > finds
> > > the server through the distributedTest locator and runs its tests
> against
> > > the server.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Le 11/1/2016 à 4:04 PM, Jianxia Chen a écrit :
> > > >> +1
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We made a lot of changes in 1.0 that broke compatibility with old
> > > versions
> > > >>> of gemfire for various reasons (package renaming, changing
> membership
> > > >>> system). I just wanted to confirm that starting with 1.1, we're
> > > planning on
> > > >>> maintaining client/server, peer-to-peer, WAN and disk backwards
> > > >>> compatibility with older versions geode as outlined in this wiki
> > page:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/
> Managing+Backward+
> > > >>> Compatibility
> > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/
> > > >>> Criteria+for+Code+Submissions
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Now that we have 1.0 out the door, we need to be more careful about
> > > >>> introducing changes that might break compatibility if we're going
> to
> > > stick
> > > >>> to these guidelines. We also probably should introduce some tests
> > that
> > > >>> check compatibility with 1.0.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -Dan
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
~/William

Reply via email to