Re: [DISCUSS] Pulling the current proposed 1.10 release until we can agree on develop being stable

[Bruce Schuchardt]

+1 for going ahead with the current release/1.10

On 8/27/19 11:31 AM, Dan Smith wrote:

+1 to creating RC1 with the current release/1.10 branch this week.

I don't see a fundamental problem with cherry-picking some targeted and
tested fixes to release/1.10, based on our assessment of the risk to
customers vs. the risk of destabilizing the branch. I think release/1.10 is
in a good state, and we should go ahead with the release.

-Dan


On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 9:28 AM Bruce Schuchardt 
wrote:


The "develop" branch has a refactoring of membership code that should
not be included in 1.10.  I waited until the release branch was cut to
push these changes.

On 8/26/19 4:06 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote:

Hi there Apache Geode devs,

It has been some weeks since the proposed 1.10 release was cut. We've
gone through a few cycles where we keep on submitting "please include
ticket GEODE-XXX" because it is critical and will break the system.
WHICH in reality tells me that current develop is broken and unstable.

I'm going to suggest that we abandon the current 1.10 release branch.
I cannot shake the feeling that our continuous cherry picking into a
branch will result in either the branch becoming unmaintainable, given
we have only select fixes in the branch OR we end up with a branch
that is more stable than our current development branch, which would
result in us having to rebase the develop branch onto the 1.10 branch.

I propose that once we see the pipeline is clean and green for a solid
we then again attempt to cut 1.10 branch.

We CANNOT continue adding to a branch in order to stabilize it.. It
just means the branch we cut from is unstable. If we cannot cut a
branch from develop without having to have weeks of stabilization
cycles, then our main branch is broken...

Either way, not a good spot to be in.

Thoughts?

--Udo

Re: [DISCUSS] Pulling the current proposed 1.10 release until we can agree on develop being stable

[Dan Smith]

+1 to creating RC1 with the current release/1.10 branch this week.

I don't see a fundamental problem with cherry-picking some targeted and
tested fixes to release/1.10, based on our assessment of the risk to
customers vs. the risk of destabilizing the branch. I think release/1.10 is
in a good state, and we should go ahead with the release.

-Dan


On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 9:28 AM Bruce Schuchardt 
wrote:

> The "develop" branch has a refactoring of membership code that should
> not be included in 1.10.  I waited until the release branch was cut to
> push these changes.
>
> On 8/26/19 4:06 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote:
> > Hi there Apache Geode devs,
> >
> > It has been some weeks since the proposed 1.10 release was cut. We've
> > gone through a few cycles where we keep on submitting "please include
> > ticket GEODE-XXX" because it is critical and will break the system.
> > WHICH in reality tells me that current develop is broken and unstable.
> >
> > I'm going to suggest that we abandon the current 1.10 release branch.
> > I cannot shake the feeling that our continuous cherry picking into a
> > branch will result in either the branch becoming unmaintainable, given
> > we have only select fixes in the branch OR we end up with a branch
> > that is more stable than our current development branch, which would
> > result in us having to rebase the develop branch onto the 1.10 branch.
> >
> > I propose that once we see the pipeline is clean and green for a solid
> > we then again attempt to cut 1.10 branch.
> >
> > We CANNOT continue adding to a branch in order to stabilize it.. It
> > just means the branch we cut from is unstable. If we cannot cut a
> > branch from develop without having to have weeks of stabilization
> > cycles, then our main branch is broken...
> >
> > Either way, not a good spot to be in.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > --Udo
> >
>

Re: Updating geode-native-build docker image

[Ivan Godwin]

Anthony,

I would like access to the geode docker account. My docker username is
igodwin.

Ivan

On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 3:54 PM Anthony Baker  wrote:

> Committers can request access to the geode docker account to push new
> images.  Note that any geode source or binaries in these images should
> *only* include releases that have been voted on and approved by the PMC
> (e.g. v1.9.0, v1.8.0, …).
>
> Can you send me your docker username?
>
> Anthony
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 2019, at 3:47 PM, Michael Oleske  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Geode Devs!
> >
> > Geode Native merged https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/509 this
> > morning since our docker image was using an old Geode version.  What is
> the
> > proper way to update docker hub (
> > https://hub.docker.com/r/apachegeode/geode-native-build) with the new
> > image?  Is that something committers should be able to do?  Or is there
> an
> > automated build that updates docker hub?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > -michael
>
>

Re: Odg: Need PR reviews

[Mark Hanson]

Hi Jake and Blake,

Could you take a look at this? I will test it as well.

Thanks,
Mark

> On Aug 27, 2019, at 9:15 AM, Mario Ivanac  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> just to remind you.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Šalje: Mario Ivanac 
> Poslano: 26. kolovoza 2019. 11:37
> Prima: dev@geode.apache.org 
> Predmet: Need PR reviews
> 
> Hi Geode dev,
> 
> we need review for following PRs:
> 
> Jira ticket:
> 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7086
> PR:
> https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/510
> 
> Jira ticket: 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7039
> PR:
> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3955
> 
> Thanks,
> Mario

Re: Proposal to include GEODE-7088 and GEODE-7089 in 1.10.0

[Owen Nichols]

There appears to be consensus that these are critical fixes.

The following commits have been brought into release/1.10.0 
 as the critical fix for 
GEODE-7088 :

git cherry-pick -x 174af1d23fb7e09eb2bc2fa55479df854850fadb 

git cherry-pick -x 5bb753a8f4ff2886acd8e62d6f51fea58e37881d 


PR 3976  has been merged to 
release/1.10.0  as the 
critical fix for GEODE-7089 .

GEODE-7088  and GEODE-7089 
 have been marked as 
'resolved in' 1.10.0.

-Owen

> On Aug 26, 2019, at 4:22 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:
> 
> Thank you Ryan,
> 
> +1 for inclusion
> 
> On 8/26/19 3:33 PM, Ryan McMahon wrote:
>> Udo,
>> 
>> Here are inline answers to your questions:
>> 
>> *Is this an existing issue?*
>> 
>> Short answer - yes, but it has never been in a release version of Geode.
>> The leak was introduced as part of some changes to address handling
>> multiple concurrent registration requests for a given client on a single
>> server.  The issue is only seen if client registration fails which is not
>> particularly common, which is why we are only seeing it now after months of
>> testing.  The commit for that was introduced here on April 30th.
>> https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/bc2a2fa5af374cfedfba4dc1abe6cbc2a7b719c8
>> The ConcurrentModificationException issue (which ultimately causes the
>> registration to fail) was introduced on April 22nd here:
>> https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/afc311c04f6908a8f725834cdf2c49ce6e902b3f
>> 
>> 
>> *Why is it more critical to squeeze it into an existing (almost
>> release) version of Apache Geode?*
>> 
>> Not sure I totally understand this question, but it is critical because the
>> leak can cause servers to crash due to OOM.  Again, because the problems
>> were introduced in late April and we haven't released Geode since then, so
>> I think it is very important to merge these fixes into 1.10.0 before we
>> release.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *What guarantees do we have that this fix makes the application more stable
>> compared to adding another hidden issue, which we will discover in another
>> few weeks from now?*
>> 
>> I added numerous tests for this scenario to ensure that the leak would
>> never happen regardless of the cause of a failed client registration.
>> There obviously is no way to 100% guarantee that there will be no issues
>> that arise from the fixes themselves, but our existing test coverage plus
>> the new tests I wrote should give us the confidence we need.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Ryan
>> 
>> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 3:17 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:
>> 
>>> In order to better understand this request:
>>> 
>>> Is this an existing issue?
>>> 
>>> Why is it more critical to squeeze it into an existing (almost release)
>>> version of Apache Geode?
>>> 
>>> What guarantees do we have that this fix makes the application more
>>> stable compared to adding another hidden issue, which we will discover
>>> in another few weeks from now?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --Udo
>>> 
>>> On 8/26/19 3:10 PM, Ryan McMahon wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 I would like to propose cherry-picking GEODE-7088 and GEODE-7089 to the
 1.10.0 release branch.  The two JIRAs are related to the same root
>>> problem,
 which I would classify as critical.  We discovered a case where a failed
 client registration could lead to a memory leak in a server, eventually
 causing the server to crash due to lack of memory.
 
 The issue is instigated by a ConcurrentModificationException due to
 iteration of a non-thread safe collection while it is being mutated
 (GEODE-7088).  This exception occurs when the client's queue image is
>>> being
 copied from one server to the next during client registration, and it
 causes the client's registration to fail.  The client would likely
>>> succeed
 if it retried registration with that same server, but if it registers
>>> with
 a different server, we end up leaking events to the client's registration
 queue on the original server (GEODE-7089).
 
 The fix for GEODE-7088 is to use thread-safe collections for interested
 clients in client update messages.  The fix for GEODE-7089 is to always
 drain and remove the registration queue regardless of success or failure.
 Together, these fixes prevent the failed registrations and memory leak.
 
 The SHAs for the fixes and tests in develop are:
 
 GEODE-7088
 - 174af1d23fb7e09eb2bc2fa55479df854850fadb
 - 5bb753a8f4ff2886acd8e62d6f51fea58e37881d
 
 

Re: [DISCUSS] Pulling the current proposed 1.10 release until we can agree on develop being stable

[Bruce Schuchardt]

The "develop" branch has a refactoring of membership code that should 
not be included in 1.10.  I waited until the release branch was cut to 
push these changes.


On 8/26/19 4:06 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote:

Hi there Apache Geode devs,

It has been some weeks since the proposed 1.10 release was cut. We've 
gone through a few cycles where we keep on submitting "please include 
ticket GEODE-XXX" because it is critical and will break the system. 
WHICH in reality tells me that current develop is broken and unstable.


I'm going to suggest that we abandon the current 1.10 release branch. 
I cannot shake the feeling that our continuous cherry picking into a 
branch will result in either the branch becoming unmaintainable, given 
we have only select fixes in the branch OR we end up with a branch 
that is more stable than our current development branch, which would 
result in us having to rebase the develop branch onto the 1.10 branch.


I propose that once we see the pipeline is clean and green for a solid 
we then again attempt to cut 1.10 branch.


We CANNOT continue adding to a branch in order to stabilize it.. It 
just means the branch we cut from is unstable. If we cannot cut a 
branch from develop without having to have weeks of stabilization 
cycles, then our main branch is broken...


Either way, not a good spot to be in.

Thoughts?

--Udo

Odg: Need PR reviews

[Mario Ivanac]

Hi,

just to remind you.

Thanks.

Šalje: Mario Ivanac 
Poslano: 26. kolovoza 2019. 11:37
Prima: dev@geode.apache.org 
Predmet: Need PR reviews

Hi Geode dev,

we need review for following PRs:

Jira ticket:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7086
PR:
https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/510

Jira ticket: 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7039
PR:
https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3955

Thanks,
Mario

Re: PR reviewers needed

[Ivan Godwin]

Hi Alberto,

I'll have this wrapped up, this morning (PDT).

Iva

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 08:17 Alberto Gomez  wrote:

> Hi community,
>
> Any volunteers to review the following PR?
>
> PR in github: https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/511
>
> JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7061
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Alberto
>
>

PR reviewers needed

[Alberto Gomez]

Hi community,

Any volunteers to review the following PR?

PR in github: https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/511

JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7061

Thanks in advance,

Alberto

RE: Passed: Nordix/geode-native#15 (test-ci - e40e206)

[Alberto Bustamante Reyes]

Sorry for this message, we did not change the CI notification email in our 
geode-native fork so it was sent to the list.
Im going to modify it.

De: Travis CI 
Enviado: martes, 27 de agosto de 2019 12:11
Para: dev@geode.apache.org 
Asunto: Passed: Nordix/geode-native#15 (test-ci - e40e206)

Build Update for Nordix/geode-native
-

Build: #15
Status: Passed

Duration: 1 hr, 36 mins, and 36 secs
Commit: e40e206 (test-ci)
Author: Alberto Bustamante Reyes
Message: Test image

View the changeset: 
https://github.com/Nordix/geode-native/compare/520c4877d5a3...e40e20602546

View the full build log and details: 
https://travis-ci.com/Nordix/geode-native/builds/124703330?utm_medium=notification_source=email

--

You can unsubscribe from build emails from the Nordix/geode-native repository 
going to 
https://travis-ci.com/account/preferences/unsubscribe?repository=10207138_medium=notification_source=email.
Or unsubscribe from *all* email updating your settings at 
https://travis-ci.com/account/preferences/unsubscribe?utm_medium=notification_source=email.
Or configure specific recipients for build notifications in your .travis.yml 
file. See https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/notifications.

Passed: Nordix/geode-native#15 (test-ci - e40e206)

[Travis CI]

Build Update for Nordix/geode-native
-

Build: #15
Status: Passed

Duration: 1 hr, 36 mins, and 36 secs
Commit: e40e206 (test-ci)
Author: Alberto Bustamante Reyes
Message: Test image

View the changeset: 
https://github.com/Nordix/geode-native/compare/520c4877d5a3...e40e20602546

View the full build log and details: 
https://travis-ci.com/Nordix/geode-native/builds/124703330?utm_medium=notification_source=email

--

You can unsubscribe from build emails from the Nordix/geode-native repository 
going to 
https://travis-ci.com/account/preferences/unsubscribe?repository=10207138_medium=notification_source=email.
Or unsubscribe from *all* email updating your settings at 
https://travis-ci.com/account/preferences/unsubscribe?utm_medium=notification_source=email.
Or configure specific recipients for build notifications in your .travis.yml 
file. See https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/notifications.

Passed: Nordix/geode-native#14 (develop - 16c207f)

[Travis CI]

Build Update for Nordix/geode-native
-

Build: #14
Status: Passed

Duration: 1 hr, 54 mins, and 24 secs
Commit: 16c207f (develop)
Author: Alberto Gomez
Message: GEODE-7113: Fix Rat error due to missing header in 
packer/windows/install-doxygen.ps1 (#512)

View the changeset: 
https://github.com/Nordix/geode-native/compare/846bcbf11872...16c207fb72ce

View the full build log and details: 
https://travis-ci.com/Nordix/geode-native/builds/124689386?utm_medium=notification_source=email

--

You can unsubscribe from build emails from the Nordix/geode-native repository 
going to 
https://travis-ci.com/account/preferences/unsubscribe?repository=10207138_medium=notification_source=email.
Or unsubscribe from *all* email updating your settings at 
https://travis-ci.com/account/preferences/unsubscribe?utm_medium=notification_source=email.
Or configure specific recipients for build notifications in your .travis.yml 
file. See https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/notifications.

RE: Updating geode-native-build docker image

[Alberto Bustamante Reyes]

The geode-native-build image has not been updated yet. Could someone build and 
push it? I could do it, but Im not a committer. If that is not a problem, my 
dockerhub user is alb3rtobr.

De: Anthony Baker 
Enviado: jueves, 8 de agosto de 2019 0:54
Para: dev@geode.apache.org 
Asunto: Re: Updating geode-native-build docker image

Committers can request access to the geode docker account to push new images.  
Note that any geode source or binaries in these images should *only* include 
releases that have been voted on and approved by the PMC (e.g. v1.9.0, v1.8.0, 
…).

Can you send me your docker username?

Anthony


> On Aug 7, 2019, at 3:47 PM, Michael Oleske  wrote:
>
> Hi Geode Devs!
>
> Geode Native merged https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/509 this
> morning since our docker image was using an old Geode version.  What is the
> proper way to update docker hub (
> https://hub.docker.com/r/apachegeode/geode-native-build) with the new
> image?  Is that something committers should be able to do?  Or is there an
> automated build that updates docker hub?
>
> Thanks!
> -michael