Permission to assign and close JIRA tickets

Good morning, Can I please get permission to assign JIRA tickets to myself as well as close them? Thank you!

Re: Permission to assign and close JIRA tickets

amurmann Thanks! On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: > What’s your JIRA username? > > > On Aug 15, 2017, at 8:40 AM, Alexander Murmann <amurm...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > > Good morning, > > > > Can I ple

Re: Review Request 60523: GEODE-3141 New flow: GetRegion

might read better. - Alexander Murmann On June 28, 2017, 11:06 p.m., Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http

Re: Review Request 60526: GEODE-3121: Verify SSL works with new protobuf protocol

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60526/#review180205 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Alexander Murmann On July 7, 2017, 10

Re: Review Request 60718: GEODE-2997: New flow getAll/putAll

--- > > (Updated July 12, 2017, 6:27 p.m.) > > > Review request for geode, Alexander Murmann, Bruce Schuchardt, Galen > O'Sullivan, Hitesh Khamesra, and Udo Kohlmeyer. > > > Bugs: GEODE-2997 > https://issues.apache.

Re: Review Request 60718: GEODE-2997: New flow getAll/putAll

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60718/#review180353 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Alexander Murmann On July 12, 2017, 6

Re: Review Request 60507: GEODE-3145: add geode-protobuf code to the geode jar

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60507/#review179170 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Alexander Murmann On June 28, 2017, 5

Re: Review Request 60523: GEODE-3141 New flow: GetRegion

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60523/#review179201 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Alexander Murmann On June 28, 2017, 11

Re: Review Request 60451: GEODE-2996: adding Put handler

In our current approach we have the same thing in essence twice, which doesn't really test anything eiter. Maybe just will need to rely on PDD's integration test to be 100% sure that it works? - Alexander Murmann On June 27, 2017, 1:20 a.m., Brian Rowe

Re: Review Request 60570: GEODE-3153 Client receives duplicate events during rolling upgrade

--- > > (Updated June 30, 2017, 11:17 p.m.) > > > Review request for geode, Alexander Murmann, Barry Oglesby, Galen O'Sullivan, > Hitesh Khamesra, and Brian Rowe. > > > Bugs: GEODE-3153 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3153 > > >

Re: Review Request 60446: Events do not get removed from the client queue for 1.0 clients

/geode/internal/cache/EventID.java Lines 437 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/60446/#comment253402> Could the "19" be demagicalized by introducing a well named constant instead of a comment? - Alexander Murmann On June 26, 2017, 10:24 p.m.,

Re: Review Request 60446: Events do not get removed from the client queue for 1.0 clients

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60446/#review179016 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Alexander Murmann On June 26, 2017, 10

Re: Review Request 60446: Events do not get removed from the client queue for 1.0 clients

hygiene and at least one of them was brough up by Galen. Can we merge this as it is and address the refactoring concerns as a follow up commit that goes to develop but not to the release branch? - Alexander Murmann On June 26, 2017, 10:24 p.m., Bruce Schuchardt wrote

Re: Review Request 60629: GEODE-3129 - Added error messages to protobuf protocol

/org/apache/geode/protocol/protobuf/operations/GetRequestOperationHandlerJUnitTest.java Lines 97 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/60629/#comment254473> Do we care if the `retriable` flag is set? - Alexander Murmann On July 3, 2017, 11:40 p.m., Brian Rowe

Re: Review Request 61420: GEODE-3307 CI failure: Uncaught exception in thread Thread[Geode Membership View Creator

--- > > (Updated Aug. 3, 2017, 10:07 p.m.) > > > Review request for geode, Alexander Murmann, Bruce Schuchardt, Galen > O'Sullivan, Udo Kohlmeyer, and Brian Rowe. > > > Repository: geode > > > Description > --- > > Now we catch Distributed

Re: Review Request 61411: GEODE-3286 Failing to cleanup connections from ConnectionTable receiver table (corrected "stopped" check in previous fix)

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61411/#review182211 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Alexander Murmann On Aug. 3, 2017, 11

Re: Review Request 60394: GEODE-3075 and GEODE-2995: merge of new protobuf protocol work.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60394/#review178901 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Alexander Murmann On June 23, 2017, 5

Re: Review Request 60157: GEODE-3075: initial work for feature flag and creation of a new subclass of `ServerConnection`.

> On June 20, 2017, 3:54 p.m., Alexander Murmann wrote: > > All my issues are minor. Overall this looks good to me. Maybe we can consider some of my comments in future refactors. The biggest issue I see is the security logging. -

Re: Review Request 60157: GEODE-3075: initial work for feature flag and creation of a new subclass of `ServerConnection`.

ernal/cache/tier/sockets/ServerConnectionFactoryTest.java Lines 58 (patched) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/60157/#comment252325> We never test that any of the other values we pass in get set. - Alexander Murmann On June 20, 2017, 12:5

Re: Review Request 60442: GEODE-3130: Refactoring AcceptorImpl communication mode switch

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/60442/#review178989 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Alexander Murmann On June 26, 2017, 6

Re: [DISCUSS] Clean build takes 10minutes to complete now

s > > BUILD SUCCESSFUL > > Total time: 2 mins 2.729 secs > > > > > > Also, I think as Jason mentioned that the slow down is due to full > product > > download for session state tests. LuceneSearchWithRollingUpgradeDUnit > > tests > > were added

[DISCUSS] CodeClimate analysis of Geode

Hi everyone, I set up my fork of Geode with CodeClimate to see if the tool might get us interesting information. You can see the results here The current configuration of CodeClimate uses PMD (https://pmd.github.io/) with the *Basic, Code

Re: Review Request 62088: GEODE-3249 Validate internal client/server messages

changes. It seems unreasonable to require that as part of this small change. How would you feel about adding a chore to backfill test coverage in the near future? It makes me quite uneasy that we don't have coverage for something this important. - Alexander Murmann On Sept. 5, 2017, 5:57 p.m

Re: [DISCUSS] Clean build takes 10minutes to complete now

Could we make it so that these tests for now are only run as part of pre-checkin till we got this ironed out and then revisit this? On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > The geode-old-versions module was originally created to pull in old > version

Re: New Geode PMC Member: Galen O'Sullivan

Congratulations, Galen! On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Mark Bretl wrote: > The Apache Geode Project Management Committee has invited Galen > O'Sullivan to join the Geode PMC and we are pleased to announce he has > accepted. > > Please join me in welcoming Galen! > > Best

Re: [DISCUSS] Removal of "Submit an Issue" from Geode webpage

+1 for moving them to the mailing list On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Mark Bretl wrote: > +1 for removal > > —Mark > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:17 PM Gregory Chase wrote: > > > Yes please, especially since I'm not the one posting these :) > > > > On

Re: Review Request 61978: GEODE-3059: LoadMonitor.connectionClosed incrementing statistics only for client-server connection

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/61978/#review184389 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Alexander Murmann On Aug. 30, 2017, 8

Re: Review Request 61978: GEODE-3059: LoadMonitor.connectionClosed incrementing statistics only for client-server connection

nMode aren't needed any longer - Alexander Murmann On Aug. 29, 2017, 9:39 p.m., Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visi

Re: [DISCUSS] FunctionAdapter incompatible serialVersionUID

Anil, I am not sure following. I think FunctionAdapter already is deprecated. Isn't it? Anthony is right though that we shouldn't remove anything customer facing unless we are doing a major release. Otherwise we are violating the contract provided by semantic versioning. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at

Re: [DISCUSS] FunctionAdapter incompatible serialVersionUID

suck here - either pre 1.0 users have a > >>> compatibility issue or 1.0-1.3 users do. With your proposoal 1.0 - 1.3 > >>> users would have modify their source code on the client and the server > for > >>> the function, correct? > >>> > >>>

Re: Debugging intermittent dunit failures

Do we have a rough idea how forking every time would impact how long tests run? On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Kirk Lund wrote: > We should just change to fork every 1 instead of 30. Wasting time trying to > debug statics is well... it's a waste of time. We should be focused

Re: [DISCUSS] Maximum duration that a class may contain a @Flaky

Everything that's in flaky should be tracked in some way. When we add something to flaky tests, someone should at least passively be working on it, e.g. gathering more information by adding logs or similar. For everything that's already in flaky we should make an effort to work through them and

Re: Volunteer Request: Write Draft Board Report For November 2017

Hi Mark, Thanks for bringing this up! Joey McAllister and I can pair on a draft tomorrow. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Mark Bretl wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > We are scheduled to report to the Apache board for the board meeting on > November 15 and need to submit a report

Re: Concourse infrastructure

Thanks for your restless efforts to fix this! On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Sean Goller wrote: > Update: We are back! Once a build makes it all the way through develop I'll > enable the metrics pipeline. > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 9:12 PM, Sean Goller

Re: DISCUSS: Refactor test source set for integrationTest and distributedTest

Bruce, what use case do you see for the category annotation going forward? Could we bring it back after we identified that we do in fact need it? On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > This seems like a good idea to me. I've never liked having the different > types of tests

Re: DISCUSS: Refactor test source set for integrationTest and distributedTest

@Patrick Those all sound like great use cases to me +1 to new structure. So far this seems like a change with no downsides. On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Anilkumar Gingade wrote: > +1 for restructuring. > > -Anil. > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Patrick Rhomberg > wrote: > > > I like

Re: Requesting Pipeline Permissions

Hi Patrick, The pipeline definition is in ci/pipelines. is that what you are looking for or do you need access to push pipeline changes? On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 12:08 PM, Patrick Rhomberg wrote: > Hello all. > > I'm currently investigating the state of our FlakyTest consumption, > believing

Re: PRs should always include tests

 On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Jacob Barrett wrote: > +1 > > > On Dec 29, 2017, at 12:05 PM, Kirk Lund wrote: > > > > I think we all need to be very consistent in requiring tests with all > PRs. > > This goes for committer as well as non-committer

Re: PRs should always include tests

Xiaojian, are you describing a situation where we change implementation because we already have a failing test that somehow got merged in? On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Xiaojian Zhou wrote: > How about the code change is already covered by existing tests? > > Not to reduce

Re: Next release: 1.4.0

The Concourse pipeline seems much more reliable at this point and the pipelines should be providing equivalent test coverage. Given that, are there any reasons to not deprecate Jenkins? On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Jason Huynh wrote: > Hi Swapnil, > > GEODE-4140 was just

Re: Write access to wiki

Thank you! On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Done. You should have access now. > > -Dan > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Alexander Murmann <amurm...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > Ca

Write access to wiki

Hi everyone, Can I please get write access to the wiki? My username is "amurmann" Thank you!

Re: PRs should always include tests

Thank you Kirk for the amazing write-up! I want to highlight that the problem of only having one kind of test goes both ways. Frequently we might think that changing something on the unit level is going to resolve a bug, but in reality the real world use case now fails a little later. I think

Re: Logging in to concourse.apachegeode-ci.info

Kirk, is access to GitHub itself working for you as expected? Using GitHub for auth on the pipeline worked for me without any issues. On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Kirk Lund wrote: > How are we supposed to login to > https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/login? >

Default branch for geode-examples repo

I noticed that many recent commits in the geode-examples repo have been merged to develop, but not master. Will those be merged to master at some point or should we change the default branch of the repo to develop?

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created

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 -

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created

Hi everyone! We cut this release branch 3 months ago and then the release got stalled. Since then we’ve added another 432 commits to develop. We also have 83 resolved Jira tickets marked as 1.8 and another 91 Jira tickets that are labeled as 1.7, but were resolved after the 1.7 branch was cut .

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created

>>>> 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 > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created

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 > wro

Slow DUnit tests for rolling upgrades

Hi all, We just had a conversation among some members of the community about the increasingly slow DUnit tests that are related to rolling upgrades. Please chime in with questions and concerns! Here are my notes from the discussion: *Why are rolling upgrade tests slow?Six versions of

Re: Access to geode github permissions

Hi Benjamin, Is the problem you are trying to solve, submitting a PR? In that case you should create a fork of the project and push your changes to a branch in that repo. You can then make a PR form your fork agains the Apache repo. Becoming a commiter is a longer process that's based on past

Re: Slow DUnit tests for rolling upgrades

our test suite seem like the best first step. Jacob Barrett will take the lead on turning these two options into action. On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > Can you fix the formatting of your message? Seems to have gotten mangled. > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Alex

Re: Assertions in Geode

+ to what Jake said. Java language asserts are a crutch that enables you to get what you think you want from your tests without getting any of the design feedback which is where I see the main benefit of unit tests and TDD. These asserts are a honey pot that makes it easier for developers to do

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created

> > > 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

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created

w and precheckin. > > > >> > > > >> Sai > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda < > > > >> sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> GEODE-5338 is downvo

[DISCUSS] When is a test not flaky anymore?

Hi everyone! Dan Smith started a discussion about shaking out more flaky DUnit tests. That's a great effort and I am happy it's happening. As a corollary to that conversation I wonder what the criteria should be for a test to not be considered flaky any longer and have the category removed. In

Re: [DISCUSS] When is a test not flaky anymore?

se out and remove > the > > > category from the rest? > > > > > > I think will we get more benefit from shaking out and fixing the issues > > we > > > have in the current codebase than we will from carefully explaining the > > > flaky failures

Re: Instructions for Setting Up IntelliJ

+1 for putting it into the repo. I am fine with either putting it into README.md or linking form there. On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Ryan McMahon wrote: > Kirk - I have a PR open here which has the "Setting up IntelliJ" section > you've described: > https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2456

Re: Starter tickets

t; > wrote: > > > +1 to "starter" over "newbie." I think the ++ plan makes sense, too. > > > > Thanks for the initiative on this, Alexander. It seems like a very > valuable > > effort for the community. > > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:3

Re: Next release: 1.5.0

John, how much of an issue would it be if the change was added one month from now? On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:36 AM, John Blum wrote: > I have 1 addition (planning to submit a PR for review) for the 1.5 release > that is imperative for *Spring Data for Apache Geode*, and

[DISCUSS] Release 1.6.0

Hi everyone! It's great that 1.5.0 just got released and we already have 108 changes ready for 1.6.0. I think we should get all those awesome changes to our users. What does everyone think about starting the release process for 1.6.0? Is anyone interested in taking on the release manager job

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.5.0.RC2

I am very much in favor of Pulkit's suggestion. We've previously discussed using something like https://github.com/nebula-plugins/gradle-dependency-lock-plugin. This would make a process like Pulkit describes very easy. We could easily be on the latest versions that are known to work and at the

[DISCUSS] Dependency update process (split from vote)

Splitting this from the vote thread. Pulkit had suggested the possibility to try updating dependencies as part of a regularly run job. That is very similar to the process proposed by Netflix's dependency lock plugin

Re: Geode 1.6.0

Hi Mike, Thanks for taking on the release manager role!  You mention some minor issues. Do you mind sharing the ticket numbers? I think it would be great if we all as a community could get a shared understanding of what and why we are adding. Thanks! On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Michael

Starter tickets

Hi all, I think we could make it easier for people to find tasks that can be their first contribution to Geode. The wiki page on how to contribute has a list of suggested projects. Most of those are pretty ambitious and likely

Re: Starter tickets

relevant to this as well: > > > > - newbie > > - low-hanging-fruit > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Alexander Murmann <amurm...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > &

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

from the past release history we had difficulty in > >>>>> achieving that, either the features are not completely ready or the > >>>>> bug-fixes have taken more time. We need verify what is right for > >> Apache > >>>>> Geode,

Re: [DISCUSS] Java 11 jobs in the pipeline

unhide each one as it gets fixed? Or wait for 100% green and then > unhide them all at once? Either way that’s a lot of PRs just for hiding > and un-hiding. > > Even better, feel free to help get to green by picking up a subtask of > GEODE-3 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/G

[DISCUSS] Cutting 1.8 release branch

Hi everyone, It's time to cut the release branch, since we are moving to time based releases. Are there any reasons why a release branch should not be cut as soon as possible?

Re: Geode 1.8 Release Manager

I am happy to take on the role for the 1.8 release. On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 8:58 AM Dan Smith wrote: > We are coming up on the date where we said we would start the 1.8 release > (Nov 1st). > > Any volunteers to be release manager for this release? > > -Dan >

Re: [DISCUSS] Cutting 1.8 release branch

by having timed releases. Does that make sense? On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 12:45 PM Sai Boorlagadda wrote: > I would like to resolve GEODE-5338 as it is currently waiting for > doc update. > > Sai > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:00 AM Alexander Murmann > wrote: > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Cutting 1.8 release branch

; >> I would like to get this PR in the release: > > >> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2757 > > >> >> > > >> >> I'm testing the merge to develop now > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> On 11/1/18 1:18 PM, Sai Boorlag

Re: [DISCUSS] LGTM on pull requests

I don't have strong opinions on this, but I am always suspect of CI jobs that indicate quality that only run periodically. If the job discovers something that needs improvement who is going to do the work and when? On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:36 PM Kirk Lund wrote: > Well, we could run it

Re: [DISCUSS] Disable merge for failing pull requests

+1 On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 12:58 PM Robert Houghton wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018, 12:55 Dan Smith > > Hi all, > > > > Kirks emails reminded me - I think we are at the point now with our PR > > checks where we should not be merging anything to develop that doesn't > pass > > all of the PR

Release branch for Apache Geode 1.8.0 has been cut

Hello everyone, As discussed previously created a new release branch for Apache Geode 1.8.0 - "release/1.8.0" Please do review and raise any concern with the release branch. If no concerns are raised, we will start with the voting for the release candidate soon. This also means that all tickets

Re: Is concourse down?

I wonder if we somehow could find a way to make the error message clearer. Since it didn't merge cleanly, there is action I need to take as the committer. However, I would never know that from the error message. On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 4:34 PM Patrick Rhomberg wrote: > See also the previous

Re: Geode 1.8 release pipeline

> > > On Nov 12, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Alexander Murmann > wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > Would someone be able to set up a Concourse pipeline for the upcoming 1.8 > > release? > > > > Thank you very much! > >

Release 1.8.0 pipeline issue

Hi community, With the fix that Owen contributed the build on the 1.8.0 release pipeline is passing. However, the PublishArtifacts job is failing with the below error: > > Failed to publish publication 'maven' to repository 'maven' > >

Permissions for Docker & JIRA

Hi everyone, In order to perform all necessary steps to release 1.8.0, I need the following permissions: * Admin permissions for JIRA (username "amurmann") * Upload permissions for Docker Hub (username "ajmurmann") Thank you!

Re: [DISCUSS] Disable merge for failing pull requests

What's the general consensus on flakiness of the pipeline for this purpose? If there is consensus that it's still too flaky to disable the merge button on failure, we should probably consider doubling down on that issue again. It's hard to tell from just looking at the dev pipeline because you

Geode 1.8 release pipeline

Hi everyone, Would someone be able to set up a Concourse pipeline for the upcoming 1.8 release? Thank you very much!

[DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

Hi everyone, I want to propose shipping Geode on a regular cadence. My concrete proposal is to ship Geode every 3 months on the first weekday. To make sure we hit that date we would cut the release 1 months prior to that day. *Why?* Knowing on what day the release will get cut and on what day we

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

ill, > > but I guess we do seem to keep finding issues after the branch is cut. > > > > -Dan > > > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 1:25 PM Alexander Murmann > > wrote: > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > I want to propose shipping Geode

[VOTE] Time-based release schedule for minor releases

Hi everyone, As discussed in "Predictable minor release cadence", I'd like us to find agreement on releasing a new minor version every three months. There are more details in the other thread and I should have captured everything relevant on the wiki:

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

Hi all, Given the overwhelmingly positive response, I added a release schedule page to the wiki: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Release+Schedule Given the many "+1"s in this thread, can this be seen as agreed or do we need a formal [VOTE] thread? On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 1:34

Re: [VOTE] Time-based release schedule for minor releases

king about here. > > I think we need a new proposal for Major / Minor / Maintenance release > definitions. That's what we should be voting on. > > > > On 10/8/18 2:24 PM, Alexander Murmann wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > As discussed in "Predictable minor re

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.7.0 RC2

+ 1 verified clean build verified green pipeline verified basic functionality On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:54 AM Dan Smith wrote: > +1 > > Ran geode-release-check. Verified pipeline is green. Looks good! > > -Dan > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:50 AM Anthony Baker wrote: > > > +1 > > > > -

Re: [VOTE] Time-based release schedule for minor releases

Sai, I think what you are saying is theoretically 100% correct. As Anthony points out in practice we'd never go for three months without a single feature. I think it makes sense to agree to aim for the quarterly release being a minor release as opposed to aiming for a patch or major. If we aimed

Re: [DISCUSS] Java 11 jobs in the pipeline

+1 to keeping them off the main tab. Having red jobs that aren't actionable will train us to ignore red jobs. On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 2:13 PM Dan Smith wrote: > I feel like it would be better to keep the Java 11 jobs off of the main tab > in the pipeline until they are actually working. In the

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created

ecurity 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. > >>> > >>

Re: Geode 1.8.0 maven repository is missing sources and javadoc jars

se.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.gradle.org_current_userguide_publishing-5Fmaven.html=DwIFaQ=lnl9vOaLMzsy2niBC8-h_K-7QJuNJEsFrzdndhuJ3Sw=8M4XmygR-osgvDf8FLkB4n2RvfRhwyzAlOKrA4FtaMg=bYynbqFa-3l4TVUv4MYWqwOfv9JX2mUXDmoJC99epyw=EV0YYGiuNbQX3rGXJF25KLeZiDQEr1VBK1CttR8TJj8= > >> < > >> &g

Re: Default branch for geode-examples

I agree that there is a conflict here of what might be most usable for users vs. developers contributing to the geode-examples repo. No matter which route we go down, we should improve guidance. If we keep master the default, I +1 Owen's suggestion of amending the template. If we make develop the

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Geode 1.8.0

possible. Regards, Alexander Murmann on behalf of the Apache Geode team

Re: Geode 1.8.0 maven repository is missing sources and javadoc jars

Thank you for catching this Brian! I will take a look and see how we can address this. On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 3:21 PM Brian Rowe wrote: > The maven repository for 1.8.0 seems to be missing the 1.8.0 source jars. > This means people using an IDE can't download these jars automatically to > see

Re: Geode 1.8.0 maven repository is missing sources and javadoc jars

nse. If we can put the > missing jars in place manually for 1.8.0 that should be sufficient. > > -Owen > > > On Dec 21, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Alexander Murmann > wrote: > > > > I confirmed what we upload to the Nexus staging site again with both 1.7 > > and 1

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.8.0 RC2

A reminder for everyone that the vote is scheduled to end tonight. Please verify and vote! @Galen I'll take a look and fix the handwritten note.

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.8.0 RC2

It's past the announced deadline and we have enough votes to close the vote. Voting status == +1: 5 votes. PMC members: * Anthony Baker * Ernest Burghardt * Sai Boorlagadda * Nabarun Nag Committers: * Ryan McMahon -0: 2 votes * Dan Smith * Jacob Barrett -1: zero votes The

Re: Geode 1.8.0 maven repository is missing sources and javadoc jars

I confirmed what we upload to the Nexus staging site again with both 1.7 and 1.8. I think we must have stopped uploading these files when we switched to the maven-publish plugin as part of GEODE-5597. Can someone who worked on the recent build changes please take a look? I created GEODE-6235 to

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.8.0 RC1

: > Is there a reason the geode-native repo was not included in the release? > > Anthony > > > > On Nov 29, 2018, at 11:15 PM, Alexander Murmann > wrote: > > > > Hello Geode dev community! > > > > I am happy to announce the first release candidate for Apache Geode

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.8.0 RC1

ubproject with a separate PMC and a viable community. > > @Alexander, I don’t think you need to issue a new release candidate. Just > add the geode-native source distribution and update the VOTE email. > > > Anthony > > > > On Nov 30, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Alexan

  1   2   3   >