Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

I think there’s value is doing a 1.9.1 patch release to support Spring users. Anthony > On Aug 13, 2019, at 11:26 AM, Kirk Lund wrote: > > Udo, Thanks for the info! Sounds like we shouldn't bother with Geode 1.9.1 > then. If I'm misinterpreting what you wrote, let me know. > > On Tue, Aug 13,

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 Au

Re: Server recovery severely degrades client read traffic

Interesting find! Can you share the code path you’re looking at? I see one related to putAll but not for get. Thanks! Anthony > On Aug 1, 2019, at 11:01 PM, Mario Ivanac wrote: > > Hi, > > we are observing severe throttling from the cluster when getting data from a > partitioned region (

Re: Hostname validation

Are you using a DNS Name in the SAN section of your certificate? > On Jul 22, 2019, at 12:23 AM, Mario Kevo wrote: > > Hi, > > When SSL is enabled and ssl-endpoint-identification-enabled flag is set > to true, hostname validation is performed while establishing a > connection. This includes che

Re: What triggers a maintenance release?

Great question, Alberto. In the past we’ve done patch releases (the 3rd digit in X.Y.Z) due to security issues but it hasn’t been a very common occurrence. What issue are you running into? Perhaps we can help with an alternative approach or workaround. If you would like the project to do a p

Re: [PROPOSAL]: Improve OQL Method Invocation Security

Here are the things I think are important: 1) I shouldn’t have to change my domain classes in order to run a query. 2) I shouldn’t have to configure anything to run a “normal” query that uses classes deployed into the cluster and stored in the region. 3) By default the cluster is secure from mali

Re: [DISCUSS] Adoption of a Coding Standard

What did you like about the SEI rules you suggested? I’m wondering why _that_ one versus all the others in the universe? Anthony > On Jun 24, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Kirk Lund wrote: > > Apache Geode has a Code Style Guide [1] which is currently defined as > following the Google Java Style Guide [

[CVE-2017-15694] Apache Geode metadata modification vulnerability

CVE-2017-15694 Apache Geode metadata modification vulnerability Severity: Medium Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation Versions Affected: Apache Geode 1.0.0 through 1.8.0 Description: When a Geode server is operating in secure mode, a user with write permissions for specific data regions can m

Re: Apache Geode 1.10 release

The nominal schedule as discussed previously [1] is quarterly. I think we avoided doing a 1.10 release this quarterly so probably the next one is Q3 2019…August / September? Anthony [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/8626f7cc73b49cc90129ec5f6021adab3815469048787032935bfc1e@%3Cdev.geode.

Re: Unnecessary uses of final on local variables

Just to confirm, the primary place where we make project decisions is on the dev@geode list. Thanks! Anthony > On Jun 19, 2019, at 7:19 AM, Bill Burcham wrote: > > I feel that a lot more > conversation is needed, outside email. On the other hand, this mailing list > is a fine place to delibe

Re: Unnecessary uses of final on local variables

I’ll offer this alternative: perhaps shorter method bodies obviate the need for explicit final vars. Anthony > On Jun 18, 2019, at 10:30 AM, Ernest Burghardt wrote: > > +1 to auto-enforcement (if possible) post-consensus > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 8:33 AM Murtuza Boxwala wrote: > >> fina

Re: Issue with full disk store directories

the test I did, I used one disk > store composed by three directories, each one with different size. These > directories were in the same disk partition. The issue I saw is that when the > log files are initialized, it is not checked if they fit in the directory, so > if the maximum d

Re: [DISCUSS] Criteria for PMC, committers

Are you thinking in terms of something like this? https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Code+of+Conduct Or something more specific to coding tasks? Thanks, Anthony > On May 31, 2019, at 2:41 AM, Owen Nichols wrot

Re: what is the best way to update a geode pull request

Let’s update the checklist to match the outcome of this thread: https://github.com/apache/geode/blob/develop/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md Anthony > On May 31, 2019, at 1:31 PM, Helena Bales wrote: > > +1. I wo

Re: [DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR

I’m glad you raised this question because without it we wouldn’t have asked ourselves “What makes a good code review, when is it needed, and who should participate?”. Thank you! Anthony > On May 31, 2019, at 12:44 PM, Owen Nichols wrote: > > I have learned that other than the required qua

Re: [DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR

> On May 31, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Owen Nichols wrote: > > We chose to make Geode an Apache open source project for a reason. If we no > longer wish to embrace The Apache Way > , perhaps we should > reconsider. I strongly disagree with the asse

Re: [DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR

When asking a question like “What is ASF policy and practice on XXX?” I have found that observing other ASF projects can be helpful. In particular, the ASF Incubator (gene...@incubator.apache.org ) covers these topics fairly frequently. Anthony > On May 3

Re: [DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR

> On May 31, 2019, at 8:52 AM, Owen Nichols wrote: > > Apache requires 3 reviews for code changes. Docs and typos likely would not > fall under that heading. > Code change == commit of any kind to the source repo(s). I agree that a strict RTC approach is as you described. ASF doesn’t mandat

Re: [DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR

Checkout [1] for some helpful context from the early days. Anthony [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/108602a14b422abe9c94d46b2c5d02c11a9cbb8b224db08b706c6263@1430991799@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E

[DISCUSS] Criteria for PMC, committers

I think it’s time to re-establish consensus around two things: 1) What is our criteria for becoming a committer and PMC member? 2) Do we have separate criteria for committers and PMC members (and thus should elect them separately)? The ASF notes that projects are free to chose the approach that

Re: [DISCUSS] Remove exception.getMessage() error handling

In the example you provided, I don’t agree that adding the exception class name creates a better user experience. Anthony > On May 25, 2019, at 6:39 PM, Owen Nichols wrote: > > Here’s an example of a message that was logged before Jack’s change: > > l192.168.99.1: nodename nor servname provi

Re: [DISCUSS] Propose new committer and PMC member - Peter Tran

Jinmei, Discussions related to committers and PMC members should be held on the private@geode mailing list not the dev@ list. Thanks, Anthony > On May 20, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Jinmei Liao wrote: > > I'd like to discuss the proposal to add Peter Tran as a new Geode > committer and PMC member.

Re: Backwards compatibility issue with JSONFormatter

Here are a few links on API compatibility: https://lvc.github.io/japi-compliance-checker/#Examples https://wiki.eclipse.org/Evolving_Java-based_APIs https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-13.html Anthony > On May 14, 2019, at 12:45 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > > Sounds good! Yeah, t

Re: Geode self-protection about overload

struggle to offer low latency. Under such > circumstances, does Geode take any action to back-off some of the incoming > load? > > Thanks in advance, > > Alberto > > > On 10/5/19 17:52, Anthony Baker wrote: > > Hi Alberto! > > Great questions. One of the funda

Re: Geode self-protection about overload

Hi Alberto! Great questions. One of the fundamental characteristics of Geode is its Group Membership System (GMS). You can read more about it here [1]. The membership system ensures that failures due to unresponsive members and/or network partitions are detected quickly. Given that we use s

Re: Extensions team hijack into Apache workers

> On May 7, 2019, at 3:28 PM, Scott Jewell wrote: > > Hi, > > Not sure if this is the right place to go, but the GemFire Extensions team > would like to be able to hijack into the Apache pipeline workers. I’ll point out that company affiliation has no bearing on whether this request is grante

Re: Issue with full disk store directories

Question: are you using similarly sized disk partitioned for all your disk stores? > On Apr 24, 2019, at 3:42 AM, Alberto Bustamante Reyes > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I reported an issue in Jira, related with full disk store directories: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-6652 > As

Re: Request for access to upload Apache Geode artifacts to Docker Hub

Done! > On Apr 19, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Owen Nichols wrote: > > To prepare the 1.9.0 RC4 release, the instructions > > say I need to request dockerhub access. > > My dockerhub account is: onichols > Email: onich...@pivot

Re: GEODE-6662 for 1.9.0

If a geode process leaks memory, I think that’s a critical issue. Anthony > On Apr 17, 2019, at 11:45 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote: > > Unless this is a critical issue I'd vote -1 for including this. > > The process to release 1.9 has already been started and should be closed to > anything othe

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.0 RC3

FYI, I reviewed the geode, geode-examples, and geode-native bits. No issues so far (except as noted by Bruce). Anthony > On Apr 16, 2019, at 1:19 PM, Sai Boorlagadda > wrote: > > Thanks Bruce. You can -1 this release candidate and I will build a new one > once the issue is resolved. > > Sa

Re: How to publish client stats on server

The client stats are written to a file on the client. They don’t get published to the server. Anthony > On Apr 16, 2019, at 6:19 AM, Alberto Bustamante Reyes > wrote: > > Hi Geode community, > > Im trying to run a simple test to check how the client stats are published on > the server, but

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.0 RC2

; > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:13 AM Anthony Baker wrote: > >> To fix this error, we need to change the type of exception we catch on >> this line: >> >> https://github.com/apache/geode/blob/develop/build.gradle#L99 < >>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.0 RC2

19, at 10:36 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > Custom properties can be set in ~/.gradle/gradle.properties so you don’t need > to modify the project properties. > > I’m also getting this error: > > 🔌 1:16 in apache-geode-1.9.0-src/ > › ./gradlew build > >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.0 RC2

Custom properties can be set in ~/.gradle/gradle.properties so you don’t need to modify the project properties. I’m also getting this error: 🔌 1:16 in apache-geode-1.9.0-src/ › ./gradlew build FAILURE: Build failed with an exception. * Where: Build file '/Users/abaker/working/apache-geode-1.9

Re: release/1.9.0 - are we ready?

Sounds good to me. Anthony > On Apr 8, 2019, at 9:36 AM, Dave Barnes wrote: > > The geode-native repo is up to date and ready for the 1.9 release. > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 9:27 AM Sai Boorlagadda > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> It looks like we have fixed required licensing and bom related is

Re: [Discuss] Removal of Thread Local Connection Pooling

One question: if I’m using thread-local connections ho does that affect pool sizing? Are thread-local connections included in the overall pool size or accounted for separately? We may want some explicit release notes if a user would need to resize their pools during an upgrade. Anthony > O

Re: [DISCUSS] Move or remove org.apache.geode.admin

Let’s separate the discussion into these parts: - What does SemVer say and how do we apply it - When should we remove deprecated code - Should we remove the admin source code entirely 1) SemVer Straight from the spec: > Major version X (X.y.z | X > 0) MUST be incremented if any backwards > in

Re: geode-all-bom-1.9.0.jar

Last call for naming suggestions. I’d like to fix this prior to releasing 1.9.0. > On Mar 27, 2019, at 9:31 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > What if we rename this to something like ‘geode-dependency-bom’?

Re: Dependency review for release 1.9.0

s to develop. > Once I have merged this to develop then I will cherry-pick this onto 1.9.0 > release branch. > > [1] https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3313 > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:32 PM Anthony Baker wrote: > >> I was reviewing the release branch and notic

Re: geode-all-bom-1.9.0.jar

versions. What if we rename this to something like ‘geode-dependency-bom’? > B) maybe not needed, since the dependencies nate already present… I think it would be better to not create and publish empty jar files for BOM’s. > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 16:09 Anthony Baker wrote:

geode-all-bom-1.9.0.jar

I’m curious: - Why do all subprojects declare a dependency on project(':boms:geode-all-bom’)) ? - Why are we shipping geode-all-bom-1.9.0.jar in the lib/ dir and in our war files? Thanks, Anthony

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal to re-cut Geode 1.9.0 release branch

I can help. > On Mar 20, 2019, at 5:08 PM, Sai Boorlagadda > wrote: > > I would like to resolve the issue around NOTICE and LICENSE files related > to new/removed dependencies on develop, which I have a PR[1] open and would > need some guidance. > There is some feedback provided by Dick earlier

Re: [DISCUSS] TTL setting on WAN

An important use case for this is session caching. Obviously it’s pointless to replicate an expired session—the user has already gone away. Copying the bits to the remote cluster is just creating unnecessary work. > On Mar 20, 2019, at 11:22 AM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > > I don't know why t

Re: [DISCUSS] TTL setting on WAN

I think there are two modes: 1) The developer wants to replicate _events_. This means all changes need to be sent to the remote site regardless of the state in the local cluster. Most likely in order :-) 2) The developer wants to replicate _state_. This means that implicit state changes (ex

Re: [DISCUSS] removal of geode-json module

We cannot use code licensed under the JSON.org license—it’s Category X [1]. There is an alternative [2] from an ASF member that was the basis for geode-json. Can we use that? The packaging looks like org.json to me. Anthony [1] https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x [2] https:/

Re: apply to get edit permission of wiki

What’s your username? > On Mar 7, 2019, at 12:15 PM, Gang Yan wrote: > > Hi Geode dev > > could you help to get edit permission of wiki page : > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Cluster+Management+Service > > thanks. > > Thanks and regards > > Gang Yan（闫钢） > GemFire product

Re: Jetty Webapp marked as optional?

Do you have a full stack trace? I’m curious where we are using this…I assume it’s on the client? > On Mar 5, 2019, at 11:08 AM, Helena Bales wrote: > > It appears the jetty-webapp dependency is now required, and not optional. > Was there a reason that it was originally marked as optional in th

Re: Submit your Geode Summit 2019 session proposals, register to attend

Sounds like a great event and I encourage you to a) submit a talk and b) attend. I also want to note that ApacheCon will be in Las Vegas this year [1] and it would be great to see some Geode talks at that event as well. Anthony [1] https://www.apachecon.com/acna19/index.html On Mar 4, 2019, a

Re: 1.9 release date

gt; The Geode release process document above also lists an additional 11 >> quality goals as “optional.” I assume these are meant as suggestions the >> community may wish to consider when voting on a release? >> >> If anyone feels the existing release process documentation d

Re: 1.9 release date

IMHO we start release work based on a quarterly schedule and we finish it based on meeting quality goals. So right now I’m less worried about when the release will be done (because uncertainty) and more focused on ensuring we have demonstrated stability on the release branch. Hopefully that wi

Re: Dependency review for release 1.9.0

Looks a number of the new dependencies came in transitively with the guava version bump. > On Feb 27, 2019, at 5:32 PM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > I was reviewing the release branch and noticed a number of new dependencies > have been added since the last release. When you add a ne

Dependency review for release 1.9.0

I was reviewing the release branch and noticed a number of new dependencies have been added since the last release. When you add a new dependency, please review and follow the project license guide [1]. In particular, update the LICENSE file in geode-assembly/src/main/dist depending on the lic

Re: another ticket for 1.9?

+1 > On Feb 27, 2019, at 1:13 PM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > > I'm wondering if we could put the fix for GEODE-6423 > in the release/1.9.0 > branch. This bug can cause a server to be kicked out faster than it should > if it fails to pass an a

Re: GEODE-6389 fixed in release/1.9.0

Sorry I meant GEODE-6338. > On Feb 27, 2019, at 9:41 AM, Sai Boorlagadda > wrote: > > Are you asking about GEODE-6343? > > Sai > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 7:51 AM Anthony Baker wrote: > >> Cool! Is GEODE-63438 also important to fix and merge into 1.9.0?

Re: GEODE-6389 fixed in release/1.9.0

Cool! Is GEODE-63438 also important to fix and merge into 1.9.0? Anthony > On Feb 22, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > > This issue has been resolved on develop and release/1.9.0 >

Re: Geode 1.9 Release Manager

There’s also GEODE-6393 and GEODE-6369 related to auto-reconnect issues. > On Feb 14, 2019, at 9:09 AM, Nabarun Nag wrote: > > I think also GEODE-6391, which is to fix a NPE while propagating región > destroy and invalidate region messages. > > Regards > Naba > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:0

Re: Apache Geode PMC quarterly report: DRAFT for your review

Under activity I would add: - Added benchmarks to baseline performance - Explored the use of micrometer for exposing metrics of cache operations Anthony > On Feb 12, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Dave Barnes wrote: > > Please respond by noon tomorrow. > Pretty complete, as far as I know, except for publi

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

See also https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-6208 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-6208> about publishing the pulse war. Anthony > On Dec 21, 2018, at 2:06 PM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > The 1.7.0 version of publish.gradle had stuff like: > > extraAr

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

The 1.7.0 version of publish.gradle had stuff like: extraArchive { sources = true javadoc = true tests = false } and afterEvaluate { // uses the tasks created by nexus for sources and javadoc if (!getTasksByName('sourcesJar', false).isEmpty()) {

Re: Default branch for geode-examples

p develop > stable. > > -Dan > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 9:07 AM Anthony Baker wrote: > >> Alexander noticed that some recent PR’s against the geode-examples repo >> made against the master branch. That breaks the gitflow approach where >> only relea

Default branch for geode-examples

Alexander noticed that some recent PR’s against the geode-examples repo made against the master branch. That breaks the gitflow approach where only released code is on master. Should we update the default branch to be develop? Anthony

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.8.0 RC2

+1 I reviewed our prior releases (particularly during incubation) and we’ve typically handled minor LICENSE corrections in the next release. Since that the file is already fixed I’m fine moving forward. Anthony > On Dec 11, 2018, at 10:05 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > I’ve rev

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.8.0 RC2

I’ve reviewed the release candidate. I’ll cast my vote after thinking about the correct way to apply [1] since the geode-native LICENSE is missing cotire (see develop branch) [2]. Reviewed: - verified tags - verified signatures and sha’s - verified no binaries in source distributions - verifi

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.8.0 RC1

e.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeode-1048 >> >> Geode's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release: >> https://github.com/apache/geode/blob/develop/KEYS >> >> Signed the release with fingerprint: >> rsa4096 2018-09-01 [SC] >> D5C5C950D61898EDE8928820D60

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.8.0 RC1

; > I am happy to work on a new candidate that includes geode-native. > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 6:39 AM Anthony Baker wrote: > >> Is there a reason the geode-native repo was not included in the release? >> >> Anthony >> >> >>> On Nov 29,

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 1.8.0! > Thanks to all the community members for the

Re: First Iteration on Java Module Support

I like the exploratory approach and focusing on the application developer UX. I’m curious to see how the next experiments go. I’d prefer to align our grade submodules with java module definitions (e.g. geode-core becomes a module). Are the fat jar module definitions solely for the client? If

Re: Questions about Poms and Publishing

ke it'd be a big step >>> forward >>>>> for similar reasons. I'd assume that "dependency constraints" don't >>>> result >>>>> in a dependencyManagement element in any published POM file though. >>>>> >>>

Re: November 2018 Board Report Volunteer

quarter) > > - u...@geode.apache.org: > - 249 subscribers (up 7 in the last 3 months): > - 201 emails sent to list (138 in previous quarter) > > > ## JIRA activity: > > - 456 JIRA tickets created in the last 3 months > - 485 JIRA tickets closed/resolved in the l

Re: November 2018 Board Report Volunteer

Are you able to send out a draft for review today? > On Nov 7, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Robert Houghton wrote: > > I volunteer as tribute > > On Nov 7, 2018 12:42, "Anthony Baker" wrote: > > We need to prepare a report for the ASF Board by Nov 14. Any volunteers

Re: [DISCUSS] Disable merge for failing pull requests

It looks like the current failure rate (post-PR, including all types of failures) for DistributedTest is around 25%. Do most people experience similar failure rates on the *-pr pipeline? I’m specifically wondering about failures unrelated to your changes. Anthony > On Nov 9, 2018, at 12:55

Re: Lombok

I was talking with Dale and he pointed me to this discussion: https://github.com/jhipster/generator-jhipster/issues/398 I think it probably warrants more investigation (e.g. do the issues decried on the the internet still exist?) before

Re: Apache Geode Branch Housekeeping

Notes: - Older release/* branches may be removed. - Do not remove branches like native-client-software-grant, sga2, wan_cq_donation, etc. Those need to be preserved as a provenance record. - Do not remove master or develop :-) Anthony > On Nov 8, 2018, at 4:55 PM, Patrick Rhomberg wrote: >

Re: Lombok

I’d prefer to keep lombok usage out of our public API’s. I’d like to be able to write javadoc for all public methods. Also, I don’t want a user to have to understand Lombok to read our API’s or do an extra step to setup their IDE. For internal usage I’m agnostic with a small dose of concern on

Re: Permissions for Docker & JIRA

Done! > On Nov 8, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Alexander Murmann wrote: > > 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") > >

Re: Permissions for Docker & JIRA

Also cherry-picked the LICENSE fix onto the release branch. Anthony > On Nov 8, 2018, at 10:04 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > Done! > >> On Nov 8, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Alexander Murmann wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> In order to perform all ne

Re: [DISCUSS] Cutting 1.8 release branch

PM Ernest Burghardt >>> wrote: >>> >>>> and PR 390 has been approved and merged >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:10 PM Ernest Burghardt >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> geode-native fixes are in

November 2018 Board Report Volunteer

We need to prepare a report for the ASF Board by Nov 14. Any volunteers to write up a draft? You can review the last report [1] and use the report generator [2] to auto-fill some sections (if you have committer status). Anthony [1] https://whimsy.apache.org/board/minutes/Geode.html [2] https:

Re: Geode Native & Apache Geode 1.8 Release

over this. > >> On Nov 7, 2018, at 8:47 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: >> >> I think the source headers and LICENSE are in good shape. I was able to >> follow BUILDING.md on macOS. At some point it would be nice to provide a >> simple a quick start guide (e.g. How to creat

Re: Geode Native & Apache Geode 1.8 Release

nce to the Geode CONTRIBUTE.md file is useful. >>> I think we can assume that a user of the geode-native API will have a >> Geode >>> installation, too. >>> docs/api/unix_index.html and docs/api/win_index.html - These files (and >>> their bad links) are no

Re: Questions about Poms and Publishing

I want reproducible builds. If dependency locking [1] works I would be open to dynamic versions [2]. Anthony [1] https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/dependency_locking.html [2] https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/declaring_dependencies.html#sub:declaring_dependency_with_dynamic_ver

Re: [DISCUSS] Cutting 1.8 release branch

The geode-native source headers I mentioned in [1] need to be cleaned up. Anthony [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/8c9da19d7c0ef0149b1ed79bf0cecde38f17a854ecfa0f0a42f1ff0b@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E > On Nov 1, 2018, at 2:01 PM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > > This PR has been merged to d

Re: Geode 1.8 Release Manager

Can you start a thread to figure out where things are at and if we’re ready? Anthony > On Nov 1, 2018, at 8:48 AM, Alexander Murmann wrote: > > 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

Re: Geode Native & Apache Geode 1.8 Release

ar Gingade >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Good work team. >>>>> +1 to get this as part of Geode 1.8 release. >>>>> It will be good to see community taking advantage of this. And >> building >>>> new >>>>> nati

Re: [DISCUSS]: SSL and jdk11

If possible I don’t think we should have any code that is conditional based on TLS version. Anthony > On Oct 24, 2018, at 11:41 AM, Owen Nichols wrote: > > If Geode code is tightly coupled to the TLS protocol version, might be good > to have some tests that explicitly test how Geode handles

Re: I want to be a geode committer

Hi Ivor, Welcome and I’m glad you are interested! I’ve included some reading [1] [2] [3] below to help you understand the Apache model and how you could become a committer. In a nutshell, committership is earned through project contributions. Those contributions could include pull requests,

Re: Thread block on org.apache.geode.cache.CacheFactory.getAnyInstance(CacheFactory.java:282)

Sorry I don’t think I understand your question. Did you encounter a problem with getAnyInstance()? Anthony > On Oct 24, 2018, at 1:27 AM, Dinesh Akhand wrote: > > No dead local was there , reader thread are waiting mostly. > PFA whole stack strace. > > Thanks, > Dinesh Akhand

Re: Thread block on org.apache.geode.cache.CacheFactory.getAnyInstance(CacheFactory.java:282)

Dinesh, have you analyzed the full thread dump to see if there is a deadlock? I can’t tell just from these 2 threads if there is a deadlock. Anthony > On Oct 23, 2018, at 6:32 AM, Dinesh Akhand wrote: > > Hi team, > > Recently we see JVM stuck , in stack trace I can see below method having

Re: Running compatibility and upgrade tests using jdk9+

> On Oct 11, 2018, at 12:49 PM, Patrick Rhomberg wrote: > >> We need testing of Geode (both old and current versions) on older JVMs > talking to Geode on newer JVMs. > > It would be nice to support this, but I'm not sure we should. We support > rolling upgrades between versions of Geode, but

Re: Release process for Apache Geode wiki

I like it! There’s some overlap with the prior ‘Release Steps’ page, which was getting a bit unwieldy anyway. Perhaps we can review and consolidate/split up sections later. Anthony > On Oct 11, 2018, at 10:31 AM, Nabarun Nag wrote: > > @Dave sure, any contribution to improving the article

Re: [DISCUSS] permit-reflect vs --add-opens for Java 11 support

Also, for #3, what does it look like to run a client application? IOW, what are the command-line arguments needed? Anthony > On Oct 10, 2018, at 1:29 PM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > Do you have a listed of restricted API’s that are used by Geode? Which > libraries used by Geode

Re: [DISCUSS] permit-reflect vs --add-opens for Java 11 support

Do you have a listed of restricted API’s that are used by Geode? Which libraries used by Geode are affected? Are these run-time only warnings or actual errors? Anthony > On Oct 10, 2018, at 12:20 PM, Owen Nichols wrote: > > Goal: > > Run Geode on Java 11 (GEODE-3 >

Re: Geode Native & Apache Geode 1.8 Release

I think starting with a source-only release of the native client is a good first step. That lets us focus on verifying that all the tasks outlined in [1] are complete and correct. Anthony [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-1416 > On Oct 10, 2018, at 11:52 AM, Dan Smith wrote: >

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

If you look through the 350+ JIRA’s fixed for 1.7.0 it’s not only bug fixes—there are improvements and new additions. IMO, using a Minor version designation was the correct choice and fits with semver guidelines. Anthony > On Oct 10, 2018, at 10:31 AM, Robert Houghton wrote: > > Alexander,

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

Practically speaking, a quarterly release cycle means there’s *always* some feature addition or improvement included in the release. That’s why I agree with the suggestion of a release cadence based on minor version bumps. See [1] for the outcome of prior discussions on SemVer. Anthony [1] h

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

We reserve the patch version number for when we want to issue a fix for a security vulnerability or address a critical bug. We did that with 1.1.1 and 1.2.1. I think the release schedule and SemVer are separate topics. AFAICT this proposal is just about putting a more deterministic schedule a

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

It’s an ASF requirement that PMC’s shepherd releases through a prescribed set of practices. It doesn’t matter if a release is major, minor, or patch—they all must be voted and approved the the PMC. Anthony > On Oct 8, 2018, at 1:04 PM, John Blum wrote: > > Also, a huge +1 to Ken's suggestio

Re: proposing reduced default for "membership-port-range"

I think there are a lot of dependencies when deploying geode that rely on well-known ports and port ranges (e.g. exporting ports from a container, firewall rules, etc). Changing the default server port from 40404 to ?? would break stuff. Here’s the rule from our own Dockerfile: # Default port

Re: [DISCUSS] Predictable minor release cadence

I’ve been advocating for a fixed release schedule for a long time. 3 months seems like a good rate given the release overhead. +1 on cutting the next release branch in November and shooting for an early December v1.8.0 release. Anthony > On Oct 4, 2018, at 6:48 PM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote: >

Re: Requesting access to dockerHub

Done! > On Oct 3, 2018, at 3:41 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote: > > nabarun13 is my dockerID > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:37 PM Nabarun Nag wrote: > >> Requesting access to be authenticated in DockerHub and be an administrator >> of the project. >> This is to upload the docker artifacts >> >> >> Reg

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >