Re: [DISCUSS] enable GitHub PR blocking on API breaking changes
+1 On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 22:19, Mark Hanson wrote: > +1. The more we can automate this types of checks the better. > > Thanks, > Mark > > -- Ju@N
Re: [DISCUSS] enable GitHub PR blocking on API breaking changes
Barry and I tossed up a draft PR to fix a problem in session state replication with Tomcat. If we can get this completed I’d like to include it with v1.13.0. I believe our tests will fail with any version of Tomcat after 9.0.21. Anthony > On May 15, 2020, at 1:27 AM, Ju@N wrote: > > +1 > > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 22:19, Mark Hanson wrote: > >> +1. The more we can automate this types of checks the better. >> >> Thanks, >> Mark >> >> > > -- > Ju@N
Re: [DISCUSS] enable GitHub PR blocking on API breaking changes
Support seems to be unanimously good, and folks voted in this thread. I'm going to make the ASF-INFRA request. On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:47 AM Anthony Baker wrote: > Barry and I tossed up a draft PR to fix a problem in session state > replication with Tomcat. If we can get this completed I’d like to include > it with v1.13.0. I believe our tests will fail with any version of Tomcat > after 9.0.21. > > Anthony > > > > On May 15, 2020, at 1:27 AM, Ju@N wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 22:19, Mark Hanson wrote: > > > >> +1. The more we can automate this types of checks the better. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Mark > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Ju@N > >
Re: [DISCUSS] enable GitHub PR blocking on API breaking changes
Please refer to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-20270 On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 2:58 PM Robert Houghton wrote: > Support seems to be unanimously good, and folks voted in this thread. I'm > going to make the ASF-INFRA request. > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:47 AM Anthony Baker wrote: > >> Barry and I tossed up a draft PR to fix a problem in session state >> replication with Tomcat. If we can get this completed I’d like to include >> it with v1.13.0. I believe our tests will fail with any version of Tomcat >> after 9.0.21. >> >> Anthony >> >> >> > On May 15, 2020, at 1:27 AM, Ju@N wrote: >> > >> > +1 >> > >> > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 22:19, Mark Hanson wrote: >> > >> >> +1. The more we can automate this types of checks the better. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mark >> >> >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > Ju@N >> >>
1.13 potential change
Whoops, this got stuck on the wrong thread. Resending. We’re continuing to investigate some compatibility issues; there may be further changes needed. Anthony > On May 15, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > Barry and I tossed up a draft PR to fix a problem in session state > replication with Tomcat. If we can get this completed I’d like to include it > with v1.13.0. I believe our tests will fail with any version of Tomcat after > 9.0.21. > > Anthony > > >> On May 15, 2020, at 1:27 AM, Ju@N wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 22:19, Mark Hanson wrote: >> >>> +1. The more we can automate this types of checks the better. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Mark >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Ju@N >
Re: 1.13 potential change
Is there a link to the PR in question? I don't see anything on GitHub. On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 4:23 PM Anthony Baker wrote: > Whoops, this got stuck on the wrong thread. Resending. > > We’re continuing to investigate some compatibility issues; there may be > further changes needed. > > > Anthony > > > > On May 15, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > > > Barry and I tossed up a draft PR to fix a problem in session state > replication with Tomcat. If we can get this completed I’d like to include > it with v1.13.0. I believe our tests will fail with any version of Tomcat > after 9.0.21. > > > > Anthony > > > > > >> On May 15, 2020, at 1:27 AM, Ju@N wrote: > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 22:19, Mark Hanson wrote: > >> > >>> +1. The more we can automate this types of checks the better. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Mark > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Ju@N > > > >
Re: 1.13 potential change
https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/5110 Sorry, I’m bad at emailing today. On May 15, 2020, at 4:28 PM, Donal Evans mailto:doev...@pivotal.io>> wrote: Is there a link to the PR in question? I don't see anything on GitHub. On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 4:23 PM Anthony Baker mailto:bak...@vmware.com>> wrote: Whoops, this got stuck on the wrong thread. Resending. We’re continuing to investigate some compatibility issues; there may be further changes needed. Anthony On May 15, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Anthony Baker mailto:bak...@vmware.com>> wrote: Barry and I tossed up a draft PR to fix a problem in session state replication with Tomcat. If we can get this completed I’d like to include it with v1.13.0. I believe our tests will fail with any version of Tomcat after 9.0.21. Anthony On May 15, 2020, at 1:27 AM, Ju@N mailto:jujora...@gmail.com>> wrote: +1 On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 22:19, Mark Hanson mailto:mhan...@pivotal.io>> wrote: +1. The more we can automate this types of checks the better. Thanks, Mark -- Ju@N
Re: 1.13 potential change
I'm also bad at using my eyes, apparently. The PR was right there in the list of open ones. I don't know how I missed it. On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 4:59 PM Anthony Baker wrote: > https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/5110 > > Sorry, I’m bad at emailing today. > > On May 15, 2020, at 4:28 PM, Donal Evans doev...@pivotal.io>> wrote: > > Is there a link to the PR in question? I don't see anything on GitHub. > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 4:23 PM Anthony Baker bak...@vmware.com>> wrote: > > Whoops, this got stuck on the wrong thread. Resending. > > We’re continuing to investigate some compatibility issues; there may be > further changes needed. > > > Anthony > > > On May 15, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Anthony Baker bak...@vmware.com>> wrote: > > Barry and I tossed up a draft PR to fix a problem in session state > replication with Tomcat. If we can get this completed I’d like to include > it with v1.13.0. I believe our tests will fail with any version of Tomcat > after 9.0.21. > > Anthony > > > On May 15, 2020, at 1:27 AM, Ju@N jujora...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > +1 > > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 22:19, Mark Hanson mhan...@pivotal.io>> wrote: > > +1. The more we can automate this types of checks the better. > > Thanks, > Mark > > > > -- > Ju@N > > > > >
