Re: Proposal to bring GEODE-8068 to support/1.13

2020-05-11 Thread Dave Barnes
Go ahead, Patrick, and add this to 1.13. On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 8:36 AM Joris Melchior wrote: > +1 > > From: Patrick Johnson > Sent: May 8, 2020 17:40 > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject: Proposal to bring GEODE-8068 to support/1.13 >

Re: Proposal to bring GEODE-8068 to support/1.13

2020-05-11 Thread Joris Melchior
+1 From: Patrick Johnson Sent: May 8, 2020 17:40 To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Proposal to bring GEODE-8068 to support/1.13 I’d like to bring GEODE-8068 to support/1.13. This commit reverts two prior commits (GEODE-8033 and GEODE-8044). GEODE-8033 and GEODE

Re: Proposal to bring GEODE-8068 to support/1.13

2020-05-08 Thread Dick Cavender
+1 On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 2:52 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > +1 > > Redis work is still marked @Experimental, but since this was reverted on > develop just after the branch cut, it makes sense to revert from > support/1.13 as well. > > > On May 8, 2020, at 2:40 PM, Patrick Johnson wrote: > > > >

Re: Proposal to bring GEODE-8068 to support/1.13

2020-05-08 Thread Owen Nichols
+1 Redis work is still marked @Experimental, but since this was reverted on develop just after the branch cut, it makes sense to revert from support/1.13 as well. > On May 8, 2020, at 2:40 PM, Patrick Johnson wrote: > > I’d like to bring GEODE-8068 to support/1.13. This commit reverts two

Proposal to bring GEODE-8068 to support/1.13

2020-05-08 Thread Patrick Johnson
I’d like to bring GEODE-8068 to support/1.13. This commit reverts two prior commits (GEODE-8033 and GEODE-8044). GEODE-8033 and GEODE-8044 introduced an experimental feature that is useless in its current state and has already been redesigned, so there is no reason for it to go out with 1.13.