Re: Question about rolling back a Geode upgrade

2019-10-09 Thread Anthony Baker
ve like how to do the switch between >> systems and how to assure the data consistency among them. >> >> I was thinking that in many cases it might be possible to support a >> rolling downgrade similar to the rolling upgrade given that the rolling >> upgrade already allows t

Re: How to post-process data from Geode backup

2019-10-02 Thread Anthony Baker
Hmmm, good question. If I’m reading the code right we skip exporting PDX types from an offline disk store (because the cache is closed). Since the export doesn’t contain any PDX type definitions, they won’t get recreated during an import. You could verify this by running “java

Re: [DISCUSS] GEODE-7241 - make Jar not War?

2019-09-25 Thread Anthony Baker
elease is already discussed to backport GEODE-7121. > > --Udo > > On 9/25/19 10:53 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: >> Thanks for the reminder. If these files are required to start a geode >> member, I agree they should be published artifacts. Perhaps there’s a >> bette

Re: [DISCUSS] GEODE-7241 - make Jar not War?

2019-09-25 Thread Anthony Baker
Thanks for the reminder. If these files are required to start a geode member, I agree they should be published artifacts. Perhaps there’s a better way to pull them in…but this seems like the best option for now. Anthony > On Sep 25, 2019, at 10:22 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote: > > @Anthony.

Re: [PROPOSAL] adding java-jq to GEODE dependency for testing

2019-09-25 Thread Anthony Baker
Sounds good, thanks for the heads up. Anthony > On Sep 25, 2019, at 8:37 AM, Jinmei Liao wrote: > > Management rest api wants to add some default jq selector to the swagger > api docs so that the downstream client tool can use it as a starting point > to filter/format the json response to a

Re: [DISCUSS] GEODE-7241 - make Jar not War?

2019-09-25 Thread Anthony Baker
Udo, Can you update GEODE-7241 to help us understand the reason why we need to publish geode-web* WARs to maven? I get that we used to do this but I can’t recall why we choose that approach. There is one request for Pulse on maven (GEODE-6208). Anthony > On Sep 24, 2019, at 3:44 PM, Udo

Re: New geode-log4j module

2019-09-25 Thread Anthony Baker
Great writeup, thanks for sharing Kirk! Anthony > On Sep 24, 2019, at 10:24 AM, Kirk Lund wrote: > > All classes that use *log4j-core* have now moved to the new module > *geode-log4j > *on develop. The default log4j2.xml configuration file for Geode Locators > and Servers has also moved to

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.10.0.RC2

2019-09-23 Thread Anthony Baker
It worked for me…? > On Sep 23, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Aaron Lindsey wrote: > > Does this happen for anyone else?

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.10.0.RC2

2019-09-23 Thread Anthony Baker
+1 Reviewed: - Signatures and hashes - LICENSE and NOTICE - No binaries in source distribution - Builds from source Quibbles: - Let’s include geode-benchmarks/ next release - It would be more awesome if geode-native extracts into a directory with a versioned name (e.g.

Re: Question about rolling back a Geode upgrade

2019-09-23 Thread Anthony Baker
Have you considered using a blue / green deployment approach? It provides more flexibility for these scenarios though the infrastructure cost is high. Anthony > On Sep 23, 2019, at 5:59 AM, Alberto Gomez wrote: > > Hi, > > Looking at the Geode documentation I have not found any reference

Re: resource manager requirements & recommendations

2019-09-18 Thread Anthony Baker
eviction or critical > thresholds, with CMS, these percentages would be a % of "Tenured" heap size. > For G1GC, they would be a % of "Total" heap size, because as you may realize, > G1GC doesn't have a max Eden space or max Tenured space." > > >

Re: Propose including GEODE-7178 in 1.10

2019-09-12 Thread Anthony Baker
t; If there is consensus from the Geode community that your proposed change >>> satisfies the “critical fixes” rule, I will be happy to bring it to the >>> 1.10.0 release branch. >>> >>> Due to the complexity of this change, could please open a PR against >>> rele

Re: Propose including GEODE-7178 in 1.10

2019-09-12 Thread Anthony Baker
+1 yes please! > On Sep 12, 2019, at 10:11 AM, Michael Oleske wrote: > > Hi Geode Devs! > > I'd like to propose including the fix for GEODE-7178. This resolves an > issue that Ivan (https://markmail.org/message/dwwac42xmpo4xb2e) ran into in > 1.10 RC1. > > SHA:

Re: Question about excluding serialized classes

2019-09-11 Thread Anthony Baker
I think the Decorator approach you outlined could have other impacts as well. Would I still be able to see specific function executions in statistics or would they all become “TImingFunction”? Anthony > On Sep 11, 2019, at 12:00 PM, Aaron Lindsey wrote: > > Thanks for your response, Dan. >

Re: resource manager requirements & recommendations

2019-09-11 Thread Anthony Baker
The challenge with designing a good approach for managing heap use in Java is that we *can’t* know how much of the current heap use is really garbage. That means that it can be really easy to evict too much or too little data. With the CMS engine there are tuning parameters like occupancy

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.10.0.RC1

2019-09-06 Thread Anthony Baker
to run ./gradlew spotlessApply independently before the build. >> >> Regards >> Naba >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 8:53 AM Anthony Baker wrote: >> >>> This seems to be a simple change to catch IllegalStateException instead >> of >>>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.10.0.RC1

2019-09-06 Thread Anthony Baker
ass(ClassLoader.java:357) ... 112 more > On Sep 6, 2019, at 8:44 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > I ran into a problem while checking the release candidate. When I try to > build from source I get this error: > > A problem occurred evaluating project ':geode-core'. >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.10.0.RC1

2019-09-06 Thread Anthony Baker
cripts that use the git plugin aren’t catch that exception like they used to do (works on 1.9.1). Since the source archive is the official release and I can’t build it, I”m voting -1. I would change my vote if we can fix this. Anthony > On Sep 6, 2019, at 8:19 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.10.0.RC1

2019-09-06 Thread Anthony Baker
I think we should extend the vote in order to understand this issue better. Anthony > On Sep 6, 2019, at 12:41 AM, Ivan Godwin wrote: > > Hello, > > I don't know that this will be cause to hold anything up, but geode-native > has two integration tests failing when trying to perform

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1.RC3

2019-09-05 Thread Anthony Baker
isfaction, would you > like to revise you vote before I record the final tally? > >> On Sep 3, 2019, at 3:38 PM, Anthony Baker wrote: >> >> Yep, I also see that apache-geode-native-1.9.1-src.tar.gz is empty. >> >> -1 until that is fixed. >> >>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1.RC3

2019-09-03 Thread Anthony Baker
Yep, I also see that apache-geode-native-1.9.1-src.tar.gz is empty. -1 until that is fixed. Anthony > On Sep 3, 2019, at 2:09 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > > It looks like the native source is missing from this RC? There is a tar > file, but it is emply if you try to unzip it. > > -Dan > > On

Reviewing a release

2019-08-30 Thread Anthony Baker
Friendly reminder: it’s really helpful when you vote for a release to briefly convey the things that you’ve checked. Here’s a good example: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/de1417694245addeb18ff8559b1832face884ad45da7cba49b6d543c@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E Anthony

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1 RC1

2019-08-29 Thread Anthony Baker
I see there’s a VOTE thread for 1.9.1. Do you suggest to -1 that release candidate? Anthony > On Aug 29, 2019, at 8:53 AM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > > I also missed this vote email. Dan is right that creating the v1.9.1 Version > instance was unnecessary. I don't think it hurts

Re: [DISCUSS] what region types to support in the new management rest api

2019-08-29 Thread Anthony Baker
Just catching up on this thread so take it FWIW. The “new management API” is intended to become the one-and-only way to configure the system. That means that eventually cache.xml, gfsh, existing API’s, etc. will only be able to configure features supported by this new API. I think the

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 req

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

2019-08-28 Thread Anthony Baker
ecision to move forward with 1.9.1 is reached by 3pm PDT Wed Sep 4, I will > dismantle the current 1.9.1 branch, pipeline and nexus staging repo and > remove 1.9.1 from the release notes wiki. > > -Owen > > >> On Aug 18, 2019, at 7:52 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: >

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

2019-08-18 Thread Anthony Baker
Yep. Get a release manager, identify and cherry pick all the changes, then do the release. Anthony > On Aug 16, 2019, at 4:21 PM, Kirk Lund wrote: > > Does anyone know what the next step is? Do we need a release manager to > proceed? > >> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 1:57 PM John Blum wrote: >>

Re: Propose fix for 1.10 release: Export offline data command failed with EntryDestroyedException

2019-08-16 Thread Anthony Baker
+1 from me. When you need to do an offline export, it’s usually important. Not being able to export *all* the data might lead to data loss. Anthony > On Aug 16, 2019, at 2:06 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote: > > +1 to include > > > On 8/16/19 12:43 PM, Eric Shu wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to

Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

2019-08-15 Thread Anthony Baker
While we can’t fix *all known bugs*, I think where we do have a fix for an important issue we should think hard about the cost of not including that in a release. IMO, the fixed time approach to releases means that we *start* the release effort (including stabilization and bug fixing if

Re: [DISCUSS] Geode dependency update process (review by 8/28/2019)

2019-08-14 Thread Anthony Baker
Usually there’s a bit of manual “art” to updating dependencies. You can’t always rely on stuff not breaking in minor releases. The best example is JUnitParams. Updating that breaks most of our tests since we use the test name for many things like region names and the new format is

Re: Propose fix for 1.10 release: Prevent NPE in getLocalSize()

2019-08-13 Thread Anthony Baker
Given that we’re trying to stabilize the release branch and this fix seems to *help* that I’m in favor of merging it. Anthony > On Aug 13, 2019, at 5:32 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote: > > @Aaron, is this an existing issue (i.e this was not introduced in a current > refactor)? > > If the answer

Re: Draft of Apache Geode Quarterly Report (Aug 2019) for your review

2019-08-13 Thread Anthony Baker
I think you could call out a number of interesting discussions that happened on the dev list: - CFP process - Criteria for being a committer - etc Anthony > On Aug 12, 2019, at 4:26 PM, Dave Barnes wrote: > > Thanks, Aaron - good catch. > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:09 PM Aaron Lindsey

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

2019-08-13 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: Updating geode-native-build docker image

2019-08-07 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: Server recovery severely degrades client read traffic

2019-08-02 Thread Anthony Baker
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

2019-07-24 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: What triggers a maintenance release?

2019-07-10 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: [PROPOSAL]: Improve OQL Method Invocation Security

2019-06-25 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: [DISCUSS] Adoption of a Coding Standard

2019-06-24 Thread Anthony Baker
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

2019-06-20 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: Apache Geode 1.10 release

2019-06-19 Thread Anthony Baker
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]

Re: Unnecessary uses of final on local variables

2019-06-19 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: Unnecessary uses of final on local variables

2019-06-18 Thread Anthony Baker
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: > >>

Re: Issue with full disk store directories

2019-06-07 Thread Anthony Baker
he 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

2019-05-31 Thread Anthony Baker
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

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

2019-05-31 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: [DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR

2019-05-31 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: [DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR

2019-05-31 Thread Anthony Baker
> 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

Re: [DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR

2019-05-31 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: [DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR

2019-05-31 Thread Anthony Baker
> 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

Re: [DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR

2019-05-30 Thread Anthony Baker
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

2019-05-29 Thread Anthony Baker
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

2019-05-28 Thread Anthony Baker
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

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

2019-05-20 Thread Anthony Baker
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

2019-05-14 Thread Anthony Baker
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,

Re: Geode self-protection about overload

2019-05-14 Thread Anthony Baker
mbers 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

2019-05-10 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: Extensions team hijack into Apache workers

2019-05-08 Thread Anthony Baker
> 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

Re: Issue with full disk store directories

2019-04-29 Thread Anthony Baker
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

2019-04-19 Thread Anthony Baker
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:

Re: GEODE-6662 for 1.9.0

2019-04-17 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.0 RC3

2019-04-16 Thread Anthony Baker
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. > >

Re: How to publish client stats on server

2019-04-16 Thread Anthony Baker
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,

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.0 RC2

2019-04-15 Thread Anthony Baker
; > 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 &l

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.0 RC2

2019-04-15 Thread Anthony Baker
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

2019-04-15 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: release/1.9.0 - are we ready?

2019-04-08 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: [Discuss] Removal of Thread Local Connection Pooling

2019-04-05 Thread Anthony Baker
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 >

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

2019-04-04 Thread Anthony Baker
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 >

Re: geode-all-bom-1.9.0.jar

2019-03-29 Thread Anthony Baker
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

2019-03-27 Thread Anthony Baker
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

2019-03-27 Thread Anthony Baker
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

2019-03-26 Thread Anthony Baker
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

2019-03-21 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: [DISCUSS] TTL setting on WAN

2019-03-20 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: [DISCUSS] TTL setting on WAN

2019-03-20 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: [DISCUSS] removal of geode-json module

2019-03-15 Thread Anthony Baker
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]

Re: apply to get edit permission of wiki

2019-03-07 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: Jetty Webapp marked as optional?

2019-03-05 Thread Anthony Baker
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

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

2019-03-04 Thread Anthony Baker
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,

Re: 1.9 release date

2019-03-01 Thread Anthony Baker
ode 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 does not &g

Re: 1.9 release date

2019-03-01 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: Dependency review for release 1.9.0

2019-02-28 Thread Anthony Baker
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

2019-02-27 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: another ticket for 1.9?

2019-02-27 Thread Anthony Baker
+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

Re: GEODE-6389 fixed in release/1.9.0

2019-02-27 Thread Anthony Baker
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

2019-02-27 Thread Anthony Baker
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

2019-02-14 Thread Anthony Baker
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

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

2019-02-13 Thread Anthony Baker
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

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

2018-12-21 Thread Anthony Baker
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

2018-12-21 Thread Anthony Baker
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

2018-12-12 Thread Anthony Baker
elop > 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 rele

Default branch for geode-examples

2018-12-12 Thread Anthony Baker
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

2018-12-11 Thread Anthony Baker
+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

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.8.0 RC2

2018-12-11 Thread Anthony Baker
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 -

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.8.0 RC1

2018-12-03 Thread Anthony Baker
/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] >> D5C5C950D61898EDE8928820D6048392BD

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.8.0 RC1

2018-11-30 Thread Anthony Baker
> > 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

2018-11-30 Thread Anthony Baker
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

Re: First Iteration on Java Module Support

2018-11-28 Thread Anthony Baker
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?

Re: Questions about Poms and Publishing

2018-11-19 Thread Anthony Baker
t;> forward >>>>> for similar reasons. I'd assume that "dependency constraints" don't >>>> result >>>>> in a dependencyManagement element in any published POM file though. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 7,

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >