IntelliJ Gradle Synch

[Jacob Barrett]

There have been a few changes recently that will require you to update your
IntelliJ Gradle Config. You can manually synchronize but I suggest enabling
"Use auto-import. Now is also a good time to make sure you have "Create
separate module per source set" enabled as well.

Please also make sure you have the latest IJ installed, 2018.2.2. I
recommend that you install the JetBrains Toolbox and let it manage and keep
you IJ auto updated.

-Jake

derived property + default value

[Sai Boorlagadda]

is there a recommended way in GEODE to implement a derived property's
default behavior?

I have a boolean property 'ssl-endpoint-identification-enabled' which has
to have a default value (if unspecified) but the default value is derived
from other property 'ssl-use-default-context'.

I see two ways in the code base:
- Use boxed boolean and a null indicates if user specified or not.
- Use additional boolean to denote if user specified or not.

[Spring CI] Spring Data GemFire > Nightly-ApacheGeode > #1023 was SUCCESSFUL (with 2423 tests)

[Spring CI]

---
Spring Data GemFire > Nightly-ApacheGeode > #1023 was successful.
---
Scheduled
2425 tests in total.

https://build.spring.io/browse/SGF-NAG-1023/





--
This message is automatically generated by Atlassian Bamboo

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created

[Sai Boorlagadda]

Develop pipeline is not dependent on Windows jobs and the initial reason
being not to slow down the pipeline.
But the WindowsIntegrationTest has not had a consistent green runs and is
red either
  - due to gradle crashing half-way through (not enough memory?) or
  - a flaky test

So should we be considering windows jobs for the release 1.7.0?
Pipeline does not already depend on windows jobs, so we can ignore those
jobs for 1.7.0 or make them invisible until they are stable?

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:37 PM Kenneth Howe  wrote:

> I expect to close PR#2368 for GEODE-5590 without merging it due to
> unexpected test failures in other test categories.
>
> Instead I have PR#2389 (for GEODE 5601) to attain stable test results for
> AcceptanceTests. This is a simpler fix to the problem at the expense of a
> slightly longer runtime for AcceptanceTests (~2min).
>
> Once we have reliable test results we can take additional time to improve
> the build/test process for future releases.
>
> > On Aug 28, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Sai Boorlagadda 
> wrote:
> >
> > I waiting for a green precheckin for GEODE-5594.
> >
> > Sai
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Alexander Murmann 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for chiming in, Sai! Are you at this point waiting for more
> reviews?
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> >> sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
> >>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
> >>> hostname
> >>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust
> >> store.
> >>>
> >>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> >>>
> >>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
> >>>
> >>> Sai
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> amurm...@pivotal.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> 
>  GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
>  https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
>  GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
>  GEODE-5338  has
> >>> open
>  PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> 
>  Does this look right?
> 
>  The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR
> >> was
>  down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
> >>> mentioned
>  yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given
> the
>  downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a
> update,
>  maybe on the PR?
> 
>  On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan José Ramos 
>  wrote:
> 
> > Thanks!!
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Juan,
> >>
> >> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch
> >>> has
> > not
> >> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Nabarun Nag
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan José Ramos <
> >> jra...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello team,
> >>>
> >>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
> >>> request
> > has
> >>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> >>> Best regards.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >> bschucha...@pivotal.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  great!  thanks
> 
> 
>  On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> >> undergo
>  all
> > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> >
> > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
> >>> as
> > well
> >>> as
> > any related commits
> >
> > Regards
> > Nabarun Nag
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >>> bschucha...@pivotal.io
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase.  Someone added
> >>> the
> > 1.8
> >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that.  We also
>  need
> > to
> >>> see
> >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility.  If
> >>> it's
> > in
> >>> use
> >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> > branch
> >> if
> >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> >>
> >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process
> >> was
> >> in-progress,
> >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped
> >> that
> >> process
>  mid
> >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created

[Kenneth Howe]

I expect to close PR#2368 for GEODE-5590 without merging it due to unexpected 
test failures in other test categories.

Instead I have PR#2389 (for GEODE 5601) to attain stable test results for 
AcceptanceTests. This is a simpler fix to the problem at the expense of a 
slightly longer runtime for AcceptanceTests (~2min). 

Once we have reliable test results we can take additional time to improve the 
build/test process for future releases.

> On Aug 28, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Sai Boorlagadda  
> wrote:
> 
> I waiting for a green precheckin for GEODE-5594.
> 
> Sai
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Alexander Murmann 
> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for chiming in, Sai! Are you at this point waiting for more reviews?
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
>> sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
>>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
>>> hostname
>>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust
>> store.
>>> 
>>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
>>> 
>>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
>>> 
>>> Sai
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
 
 GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
 https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
 GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
 GEODE-5338  has
>>> open
 PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
 
 Does this look right?
 
 The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR
>> was
 down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
>>> mentioned
 yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given the
 downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a update,
 maybe on the PR?
 
 On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan José Ramos 
 wrote:
 
> Thanks!!
> 
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag  wrote:
> 
>> Hi Juan,
>> 
>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch
>>> has
> not
>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
>> 
>> Regards
>> Nabarun Nag
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan José Ramos <
>> jra...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello team,
>>> 
>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
>>> request
> has
>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
>>> Best regards.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>> bschucha...@pivotal.io>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 great!  thanks
 
 
 On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
>> undergo
 all
> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> 
> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
>>> as
> well
>>> as
> any related commits
> 
> Regards
> Nabarun Nag
> 
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>> bschucha...@pivotal.io
> 
> wrote:
> 
>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase.  Someone added
>>> the
> 1.8
>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that.  We also
 need
> to
>>> see
>> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility.  If
>>> it's
> in
>>> use
>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> branch
>> if
>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
>> 
>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process
>> was
>> in-progress,
>>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped
>> that
>> process
 mid
>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> develop
 pretty
>>> soon.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> Nabarun
>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>> bschucha...@pivotal.io>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says
>> its
>> 1.8.0.
 Is
 that intentional?
 
 
 private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
 
 public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
   new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
>>> (byte)0,
 (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
 
 
 On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> After reading 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created

[Sai Boorlagadda]

I waiting for a green precheckin for GEODE-5594.

Sai
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Alexander Murmann 
wrote:

> Thanks for chiming in, Sai! Are you at this point waiting for more reviews?
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
> > the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
> > hostname
> > validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust
> store.
> >
> > So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> >
> > Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
> >
> > Sai
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> > >
> > > GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> > > https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> > > GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> > > GEODE-5338  has
> > open
> > > PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> > >
> > > Does this look right?
> > >
> > > The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR
> was
> > > down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
> > mentioned
> > > yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given the
> > > downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a update,
> > > maybe on the PR?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan José Ramos 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks!!
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Juan,
> > > > >
> > > > > GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch
> > has
> > > > not
> > > > > yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan José Ramos <
> jra...@pivotal.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello team,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
> > request
> > > > has
> > > > > > been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > > > > > Best regards.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > > bschucha...@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > great!  thanks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > > > > > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> undergo
> > > all
> > > > > > > > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
> > as
> > > > well
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > any related commits
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > > > bschucha...@pivotal.io
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase.  Someone added
> > the
> > > > 1.8
> > > > > > > >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that.  We also
> > > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > see
> > > > > > > >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility.  If
> > it's
> > > > in
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> > > > branch
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process
> was
> > > > > > > >> in-progress,
> > > > > > > >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped
> that
> > > > > process
> > > > > > > mid
> > > > > > > >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > > > > > > >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> > > > develop
> > > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > >>> soon.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Regards
> > > > > > > >>> Nabarun
> > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > > > > >> bschucha...@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >  It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says
> its
> > > > > 1.8.0.
> > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > >  that intentional?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > > > > > > new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> > (byte)0,
> > > > > > >  (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > > > > > > > After reading through the weekend, validating against CN
> > as a
> > > > > > > > fallback should be acceptable and dont 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created

[Alexander Murmann]

Thanks for chiming in, Sai! Are you at this point waiting for more reviews?

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Sai Boorlagadda  wrote:

> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
> hostname
> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust store.
>
> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
>
> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
>
> Sai
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann 
> wrote:
>
> > Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> >
> > GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> > https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> > GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> > GEODE-5338  has
> open
> > PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> >
> > Does this look right?
> >
> > The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR was
> > down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
> mentioned
> > yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given the
> > downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a update,
> > maybe on the PR?
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan José Ramos 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks!!
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Juan,
> > > >
> > > > GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch
> has
> > > not
> > > > yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan José Ramos 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello team,
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
> request
> > > has
> > > > > been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > > > > Best regards.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > bschucha...@pivotal.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > great!  thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > > > > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will undergo
> > all
> > > > > > > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
> as
> > > well
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > any related commits
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > > bschucha...@pivotal.io
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase.  Someone added
> the
> > > 1.8
> > > > > > >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that.  We also
> > need
> > > to
> > > > > see
> > > > > > >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility.  If
> it's
> > > in
> > > > > use
> > > > > > >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> > > branch
> > > > if
> > > > > > >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > > > >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
> > > > > > >> in-progress,
> > > > > > >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that
> > > > process
> > > > > > mid
> > > > > > >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > > > > > >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> > > develop
> > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > >>> soon.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Regards
> > > > > > >>> Nabarun
> > > > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > > > >> bschucha...@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >  It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its
> > > > 1.8.0.
> > > > > > Is
> > > > > >  that intentional?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > > > > > new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> (byte)0,
> > > > > >  (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > > > > > > After reading through the weekend, validating against CN
> as a
> > > > > > > fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> > > concerns
> > > > > > > with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> > > GEODE-5338.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sai
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> > > 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > > 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created

[Sai Boorlagadda]

GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
hostname
validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust store.

So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.

Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.

Sai

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann 
wrote:

> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
>
> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> GEODE-5338  has open
> PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
>
> Does this look right?
>
> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR was
> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai mentioned
> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given the
> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a update,
> maybe on the PR?
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan José Ramos 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks!!
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Juan,
> > >
> > > GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch has
> > not
> > > yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Nabarun Nag
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan José Ramos 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello team,
> > > >
> > > > Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull request
> > has
> > > > been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > > > Best regards.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > bschucha...@pivotal.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > great!  thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > > > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will undergo
> all
> > > > > > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0, as
> > well
> > > > as
> > > > > > any related commits
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > bschucha...@pivotal.io
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase.  Someone added the
> > 1.8
> > > > > >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that.  We also
> need
> > to
> > > > see
> > > > > >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility.  If it's
> > in
> > > > use
> > > > > >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> > branch
> > > if
> > > > > >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > > >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
> > > > > >> in-progress,
> > > > > >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that
> > > process
> > > > > mid
> > > > > >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > > > > >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> > develop
> > > > > pretty
> > > > > >>> soon.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Regards
> > > > > >>> Nabarun
> > > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > > >> bschucha...@pivotal.io>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >  It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its
> > > 1.8.0.
> > > > > Is
> > > > >  that intentional?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > > > > 
> > > > >  public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > > > > new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8, (byte)0,
> > > > >  (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > > > > > After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
> > > > > > fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> > concerns
> > > > > > with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> > GEODE-5338.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sai
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> > 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > > >  sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is
> > good
> > > > and
> > > > >  needed
> > > > > >> more coverage.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
> something
> > > > about
> > > > >  JDK's
> > > > > 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created

[Alexander Murmann]

Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:

GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
GEODE-5338 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.

Does this look right?

The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR was
down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai mentioned
yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given the
downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a update,
maybe on the PR?

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan José Ramos  wrote:

> Thanks!!
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag  wrote:
>
> > Hi Juan,
> >
> > GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch has
> not
> > yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> >
> > Regards
> > Nabarun Nag
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan José Ramos 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello team,
> > >
> > > Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull request
> has
> > > been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > > Best regards.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > bschucha...@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > great!  thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will undergo all
> > > > > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0, as
> well
> > > as
> > > > > any related commits
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > bschucha...@pivotal.io
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase.  Someone added the
> 1.8
> > > > >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that.  We also need
> to
> > > see
> > > > >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility.  If it's
> in
> > > use
> > > > >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> branch
> > if
> > > > >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
> > > > >> in-progress,
> > > > >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that
> > process
> > > > mid
> > > > >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > > > >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> develop
> > > > pretty
> > > > >>> soon.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Regards
> > > > >>> Nabarun
> > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > >> bschucha...@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > >  It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its
> > 1.8.0.
> > > > Is
> > > >  that intentional?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > > > 
> > > >  public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > > > new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8, (byte)0,
> > > >  (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > > > > After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
> > > > > fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> concerns
> > > > > with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > > > >
> > > > > Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> GEODE-5338.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sai
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > >  sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is
> good
> > > and
> > > >  needed
> > > > >> more coverage.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something
> > > about
> > > >  JDK's
> > > > >> default implementation of
> > > > >> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
> needs a
> > > > >> rethought. It could result in
> > > > >> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> validation.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should
> do
> > > in a
> > > > >> different thread.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sai
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > > >> amurm...@pivotal.io
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see
> > the
> > > > >>> following
> > > > >>> tickets listed in this thread as 

Admin on Jenkins

[Jacob Barrett]

Looking for someone to grant me admin access on our Jenkins. Now that we
are publishing SNAPSHOTs via the Concourse CI there is no need to keep
running the night Jenkins spammer... I mean SNAPSHOT job.

-Jake

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created

[Juan José Ramos]

Thanks!!

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag  wrote:

> Hi Juan,
>
> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch has not
> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
>
> Regards
> Nabarun Nag
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan José Ramos 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello team,
> >
> > Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull request has
> > been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > Best regards.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> bschucha...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > great!  thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will undergo all
> > > > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > > >
> > > > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0, as well
> > as
> > > > any related commits
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > bschucha...@pivotal.io
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase.  Someone added the 1.8
> > > >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that.  We also need to
> > see
> > > >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility.  If it's in
> > use
> > > >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the branch
> if
> > > >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > > >>
> > > >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
> > > >> in-progress,
> > > >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that
> process
> > > mid
> > > >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > > >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current develop
> > > pretty
> > > >>> soon.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Regards
> > > >>> Nabarun
> > > >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > >> bschucha...@pivotal.io>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > >  It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its
> 1.8.0.
> > > Is
> > >  that intentional?
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > > 
> > >  public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > > new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8, (byte)0,
> > >  (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > > > After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
> > > > fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further concerns
> > > > with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > > >
> > > > Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with GEODE-5338.
> > > >
> > > > Sai
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > >  sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is good
> > and
> > >  needed
> > > >> more coverage.
> > > >>
> > > >> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something
> > about
> > >  JDK's
> > > >> default implementation of
> > > >> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it needs a
> > > >> rethought. It could result in
> > > >> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname validation.
> > > >>
> > > >> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should do
> > in a
> > > >> different thread.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sai
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > >> amurm...@pivotal.io
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see
> the
> > > >>> following
> > > >>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>   - GEODE-5615 - ✅ resolved
> > > >>>   - GEODE-5601 - ‍♀️ in progress
> > > >>>   - GEODE-5594 - ‍♀️ waiting for PR review
> > > >>>   - GEODE-5338 - ‍♀️ waiting for PR review
> > > >>>   - GEODE-5619 -  in progress in JIRA but has merged PR.
> > What
> > > >> does
> > >  it
> > > >>>   mean?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is
> > > that
> > > >>> correct?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> jde...@pivotal.io>
> > >  wrote:
> > >  I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > > 
> > >  On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> gz...@pivotal.io
> > >
> > >  wrote:
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > The release will be a great one with so 

Build for version 1.8.0-build.1346 of Apache Geode failed.

[apachegeodeci]

=

The build job for Apache Geode version 1.8.0-build.1346 has failed.


Build artifacts are available at:
http://files.apachegeode-ci.info/builds/1.8.0-build.1346/geode-build-artifacts-1.8.0-build.1346.tgz

Test results are available at:
http://files.apachegeode-ci.info/builds/1.8.0-build.1346/test-results/build/


Job: 
https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/develop/jobs/Build/builds/389

=

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created

[Nabarun Nag]

Hi Juan,

GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch has not
yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0

Regards
Nabarun Nag

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan José Ramos  wrote:

> Hello team,
>
> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull request has
> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> Best regards.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt 
> wrote:
>
> > great!  thanks
> >
> >
> > On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will undergo all
> > > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > >
> > > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0, as well
> as
> > > any related commits
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Nabarun Nag
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> bschucha...@pivotal.io
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase.  Someone added the 1.8
> > >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that.  We also need to
> see
> > >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility.  If it's in
> use
> > >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the branch if
> > >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > >>
> > >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
> > >> in-progress,
> > >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that process
> > mid
> > >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current develop
> > pretty
> > >>> soon.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards
> > >>> Nabarun
> > >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > >> bschucha...@pivotal.io>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its 1.8.0.
> > Is
> >  that intentional?
> > 
> > 
> >  private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > 
> >  public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8, (byte)0,
> >  (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > 
> > 
> >  On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > > After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
> > > fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further concerns
> > > with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > >
> > > Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with GEODE-5338.
> > >
> > > Sai
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >>
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >  sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is good
> and
> >  needed
> > >> more coverage.
> > >>
> > >> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something
> about
> >  JDK's
> > >> default implementation of
> > >> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it needs a
> > >> rethought. It could result in
> > >> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname validation.
> > >>
> > >> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should do
> in a
> > >> different thread.
> > >>
> > >> Sai
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > >> amurm...@pivotal.io
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the
> > >>> following
> > >>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> > >>>
> > >>>   - GEODE-5615 - ✅ resolved
> > >>>   - GEODE-5601 - ‍♀️ in progress
> > >>>   - GEODE-5594 - ‍♀️ waiting for PR review
> > >>>   - GEODE-5338 - ‍♀️ waiting for PR review
> > >>>   - GEODE-5619 -  in progress in JIRA but has merged PR.
> What
> > >> does
> >  it
> > >>>   mean?
> > >>>
> > >>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> > >>>
> > >>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is
> > that
> > >>> correct?
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe 
> >  wrote:
> >  I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > 
> >  On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou  >
> >  wrote:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs
> > fixed.
> > >
> > > Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
> build.gradle
> > >> and
> > > recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is
> > also
> >  success.
> > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> > aba...@pivotal.io>
> >  wrote:
> > >> I most definitely agree!
> > >>
> > >> Anthony
> > 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created

[Juan José Ramos]

Hello team,

Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull request has
been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
Best regards.


On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt 
wrote:

> great!  thanks
>
>
> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will undergo all
> > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> >
> > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0, as well as
> > any related commits
> >
> > Regards
> > Nabarun Nag
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase.  Someone added the 1.8
> >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that.  We also need to see
> >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility.  If it's in use
> >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the branch if
> >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> >>
> >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
> >> in-progress,
> >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that process
> mid
> >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current develop
> pretty
> >>> soon.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Nabarun
> >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >> bschucha...@pivotal.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its 1.8.0.
> Is
>  that intentional?
> 
> 
>  private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> 
>  public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8, (byte)0,
>  (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> 
> 
>  On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
> > fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further concerns
> > with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> >
> > Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with GEODE-5338.
> >
> > Sai
> > [1]
> >
> >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
>  sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is good and
>  needed
> >> more coverage.
> >>
> >> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something about
>  JDK's
> >> default implementation of
> >> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it needs a
> >> rethought. It could result in
> >> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname validation.
> >>
> >> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should do in a
> >> different thread.
> >>
> >> Sai
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> >> amurm...@pivotal.io
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the
> >>> following
> >>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> >>>
> >>>   - GEODE-5615 - ✅ resolved
> >>>   - GEODE-5601 - ‍♀️ in progress
> >>>   - GEODE-5594 - ‍♀️ waiting for PR review
> >>>   - GEODE-5338 - ‍♀️ waiting for PR review
> >>>   - GEODE-5619 -  in progress in JIRA but has merged PR. What
> >> does
>  it
> >>>   mean?
> >>>
> >>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> >>>
> >>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is
> that
> >>> correct?
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe 
>  wrote:
>  I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> 
>  On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou 
>  wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs
> fixed.
> >
> > Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle
> >> and
> > recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is
> also
>  success.
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> aba...@pivotal.io>
>  wrote:
> >> I most definitely agree!
> >>
> >> Anthony
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith 
> >> wrote:
> >>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest
> OOMEs)
> >>> and
> >>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before
> >>> cutting
> > the
> >>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release
>  branch
> >> from
> >>> a point where we have these systematic issues with our
> pipeline.
> >>>
> >>> -Dan
> >>
>
>

--