Re: Updating geode-native-build docker image

2019-08-28 Thread Anthony Baker
Done! > On Aug 27, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Ivan Godwin wrote: > > 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

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1 RC1

2019-08-28 Thread John Blum
+1 On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 2:51 PM Dan Smith wrote: > I missed this vote email as well - if we reopen the vote I'll cast one. I > don't really have much context on why we want a 1.9.1 but I'm happy to > double check the bits. > > One comment on this RC - I noticed that we bumped the ordinal in

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

2019-08-28 Thread John Blum
+1 Yes! SBDG needs the Apache Geode 1.9.1 release with the Logging changes if you want to see Apache Geode on *Spring Initializer*. The Logging issues are impeding the presence of Apache Geode on *Initializer* at start.spring.io. On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 4:48 PM Anthony Baker wrote: > I think

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

2019-08-28 Thread Anthony Baker
I think it makes sense to do a 1.9.1 release for the same reasons that we proposed it originally. It looks like we all missed the VOTE thread (it was on my // todo list).In the past when we’ve had insufficient votes, we've extended the deadline and asked for help reviewing the release.

Re: [DISCUSS] Improvements on client function execution API

2019-08-28 Thread Dan Smith
Sorry for the slow response, I've been trying to decide what I think is the right approach here. For (1) - conceptually, I don't have a problem with having both blocking and non blocking methods on Execution. So adding blocking versions of execute() with a timeout seems ok. But I do think if we

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

2019-08-28 Thread Mark Hanson
+1 for log4j changes etc. Mark

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1 RC1

2019-08-28 Thread Dan Smith
I missed this vote email as well - if we reopen the vote I'll cast one. I don't really have much context on why we want a 1.9.1 but I'm happy to double check the bits. One comment on this RC - I noticed that we bumped the ordinal in Version.java - is that what we actually want to do? That implies

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

2019-08-28 Thread Ryan McMahon
+1 to continuing with the release branch we have. I don't think that anybody is aiming to cause instability on the develop branch. We are all designing, writing code, refactoring, and writing exhaustive tests to the best of our ability to ensure high quality. We have to accept that there will

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1 RC1

2019-08-28 Thread Udo Kohlmeyer
+1 for a re-vote On 8/28/19 2:42 PM, Kirk Lund wrote: SBDG 1.2 is currently in RC and cannot be changed to depend on Geode 1.10. It must depend on Geode 1.9 or 1.9.1. So if we want to provide the logging fixes for SBDG 1.2 then we must release Geode 1.9.1. Let's open a new vote for releasing

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1 RC1

2019-08-28 Thread Kirk Lund
SBDG 1.2 is currently in RC and cannot be changed to depend on Geode 1.10. It must depend on Geode 1.9 or 1.9.1. So if we want to provide the logging fixes for SBDG 1.2 then we must release Geode 1.9.1. Let's open a new vote for releasing Geode 1.9.1. On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:37 PM Owen

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

2019-08-28 Thread Kirk Lund
Let's reopen the vote! On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:49 PM Kirk Lund wrote: > Do folks actually want a 1.9.1 release? > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:38 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > >> The VOTE for 1.9.1.RC1 failed due to lack of quorum, so re-opening this >> thread to continue the discussion. >> >> Is

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

2019-08-28 Thread Udo Kohlmeyer
Fundamentally I also don't have a problem with cherry-picking fixes to a potential release candidate. My concern is that the amount of fixes that were cherry-picked. I also believe that "stabilizing" a release does have some cherry-picking, BUT the amount of stabilization that we have to

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

2019-08-28 Thread Kirk Lund
Do folks actually want a 1.9.1 release? On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:38 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > The VOTE for 1.9.1.RC1 failed due to lack of quorum, so re-opening this > thread to continue the discussion. > > Is there still a need for a 1.9 patch release (especially given that > 1.10.0.RC1 is

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

2019-08-28 Thread Owen Nichols
The VOTE for 1.9.1.RC1 failed due to lack of quorum, so re-opening this thread to continue the discussion. Is there still a need for a 1.9 patch release (especially given that 1.10.0.RC1 is expected later this week)? If so, perhaps we should back up a step or two and first: 1) come to rough

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1 RC1

2019-08-28 Thread Owen Nichols
It's past the announced deadline and the vote has failed to due to lack of quorum. Voting status == +1: zero votes +0: zero votes -0: zero votes -1: zero votes The voting does not meet the requirements of at least 3 PMC members with

warning about confused code

2019-08-28 Thread Bruce Schuchardt
I've seen several instances in Geode code where someone has modified a class or interface to make an object Serializable in order to make distributed unit testing easier. In all of these instances people have made a class implement DataSerializable, which extends Serializable.  This allowed