Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking merge button in PR

2019-10-19 Thread Owen Nichols
product problem 100% of the time. A flickering test >>>> doesn't always mean it's a problem with the test. >>>> >>>> On 10/18/19 12:46 PM, Ernest Burghardt wrote: >>>>> I had one recently that was Approved and I merged pre-maturely and >

Re: Time to starting thinking about cutting the 1.11 release branch?

2019-10-18 Thread Owen Nichols
hts? > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:25 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > >> Geode's stated policy < >> http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2018/board_minutes_2018_11_21.txt> >> is to cut quarterly release branches on a time-based schedule >> (specifical

Time to starting thinking about cutting the 1.11 release branch?

2019-10-18 Thread Owen Nichols
Geode's stated policy is to cut quarterly release branches on a time-based schedule (specifically, the Monday on or after Feb 1, May 1, Aug 1, Nov 1). Here’s a potential timeline: Now [Contributors] Start

Re: [DISCUSS] Blocking merge button in PR

2019-10-18 Thread Owen Nichols
Do you have a recent example of a PR that was merged despite failed PR checks, which then broke the build? At last discussion, one concern raised was providing a way that anyone in the community could re-trigger a failed PR check if it hit an unrelated flaky failure. Let’s be sure we've

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.2.RC1

2019-10-15 Thread Owen Nichols
I am concerned that this 1.9.2 release contains features that are not in 1.10: GEODE-7241 Publish war artifacts for geode-web , geode-web-api and geode-web-management to Maven Central. GEODE-7261 Fix compatibility with launching geode-web (admin REST API) when Spring 5.x jars are on the

Re: [DISCUSS]: Commit Message Format too Short?

2019-10-08 Thread Owen Nichols
ather some feedback and opinions >> from the community to better decide how to proceed: remove the rule, >> increase the maximum amount of characters from 50 to something else in the >> commit message subject, automatically enforce the rule altogether and >> prevent co

Re: [DISCUSS]: Commit Message Format too Short?

2019-10-08 Thread Owen Nichols
I don’t care how long it is, but knowing that many tools show only the first bit, it’s helpful if the message is phrased with the most important words near the beginning. I’d much prefer to encourage rather than discourage descriptive commit messages. Even better if all commit messages mentioned

Re: [DISCUSS] Add GEODE-7261 and GEODE-7241 to release/1.9.2

2019-10-07 Thread Owen Nichols
nt libraries, the version of Geode cannot be > changed and only patch versions are allowed. So, in order to address the > regression, a patch to 1.9.x is requested. > > Hope that this explains it a little better. > > --Udo > > On 10/7/19 3:50 PM, Owen Nichols wrote: >>

Re: [DISCUSS] Add GEODE-7261 and GEODE-7241 to release/1.9.2

2019-10-07 Thread Owen Nichols
I don’t yet have a clear understanding of what makes these critical, especially GEODE-7241. Can you elaborate, including: * Are these fixes already in 1.10? If not, would a 1.10.1 patch be required as well? * What is the impact of not including each of these fixes? Is there a workaround? On

Re: [Announce] Release branch 1.9.2 created

2019-10-04 Thread Owen Nichols
I can see that the AEQ pause feature was previously discussed and approved: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9b5f5c58e1b298d9d0ca870a0deec06f7344a60809790c75a5f68bfa@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E

Re: [DISCUSS] Support For LTS Version Of Geode

2019-09-30 Thread Owen Nichols
I am curious, what is the primary reason for such a long release cycle for Spring Data Geode? Also curious, what kinds of fixes is SDG expecting to “keep out” by locking in a particular minor release? Perhaps a good question for Geode is, why do we increment the minor version on every

Re: broken build

2019-09-27 Thread Owen Nichols
Thanks Bruce! I’ve updated the release script to make a PR instead of committing directly to develop when adding the old version. > On Sep 27, 2019, at 5:04 PM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > > I've pushed changes to handle v1.10.0 in our tests > > Please don't push changes to our repo w/o

Re: Spring Boot with Geode 1.10

2019-09-25 Thread Owen Nichols
roject/spring-boot-dependencies/pom.xml#L153 > [3] > https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-boot/blob/v2.0.9.RELEASE/spring-boot-project/spring-boot-dependencies/pom.xml#L127 > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 1:14 PM Jacob Barrett wrote: > >> Offline discovery…

Re: Spring Boot with Geode 1.10

2019-09-25 Thread Owen Nichols
) > implementation(‘org.apache.geode:geode-core’) > implementation('org.apache.geode:geode-cq’) > } > > Does that make a difference? > > >> On Sep 25, 2019, at 12:35 PM, Owen Nichols wrote: >> >> My build.gradle is pretty simple: >>

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

2019-09-25 Thread Owen Nichols
rary and > some features are just yet to be implemented." > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 9:57 AM Owen Nichols wrote: > >> For a pure-java implementation, might be worth considering >> https://github.com/eiiches/jackson-jq >> >>> On Sep 25, 2019, at 9:40 AM, D

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.10.0.RC2

2019-09-25 Thread Owen Nichols
'org.apache.geode:geode-cq:1.10.0' } > On Sep 25, 2019, at 12:29 PM, Jacob Barrett wrote: > > > >> On Sep 25, 2019, at 12:26 PM, Owen Nichols wrote: >> >> ⚠️ to run my spring boot client for above test, I had to manually add >> compile 'io.micrometer:micr

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.10.0.RC2

2019-09-25 Thread Owen Nichols
+0 ✅ verified that apache-geode-native-1.10.0-src.tar.gz extracts with a versioned top-level directory ✅ set up a small cluster (2 locators, 3 servers, 1 client, ssl enabled) and ran some simple puts, gets, and CQ. ⚠️ I cannot give “+1" yet because the release notes

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

2019-09-25 Thread Owen Nichols
For a pure-java implementation, might be worth considering https://github.com/eiiches/jackson-jq > On Sep 25, 2019, at 9:40 AM, Dan Smith wrote: > > +1 - sounds good. > > BTW - We've previously found libraries that use JNA tend to be more > flaky/platform dependent than pure java libaries -

Re: [VOTE] Adding a lucene specific fix to release/1.10.0

2019-09-19 Thread Owen Nichols
kported in future if we did not do it now. > > - How extensively has the fix been tested on develop? > We introduced several dunit and junit tests. > > - How “sensitive” is the area of code it touches? > Not sensitive. > > - What new tests have been added? > New dunit tests

Re: [VOTE] Adding a lucene specific fix to release/1.10.0

2019-09-19 Thread Owen Nichols
> On Sep 19, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Xiaojian Zhou wrote: > > Owen: > > The reason is: it's already cherry-picked to 1.9. Can you kindly point me to the specific SHA where this was fixed in 1.9? I am not able to find it... > > Gester > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 1

Re: [VOTE] Adding a lucene specific fix to release/1.10.0

2019-09-19 Thread Owen Nichols
It looks like this has already passed the vote, but I don’t see an explanation anywhere in this thread for what makes this a "critical fix". As I recall release/1.10.0 was branched at the beginning of August, so it seems appropriate to apply a very high level of scrutiny to any continuing

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.10.0.RC1

2019-09-09 Thread Owen Nichols
viable. We will prepare a 1.10.0.RC2 soon. Regards Dick & Owen > On Sep 9, 2019, at 9:01 AM, Dan Smith wrote: > > +1 to getting the source build fix into 1.10. > > -Dan > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:58 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > >> +1 for catching the correct gr

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.10.0.RC1

2019-09-06 Thread Owen Nichols
me to 1.10 > -1 to RC1 until then > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 14:21 Owen Nichols wrote: > >> Hi Anthony, thank you for bringing your concern. >> >> If there is consensus from the Geode community that your proposed fix >> satisfies the “critical fixes” rule, I will be

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.10.0.RC1

2019-09-06 Thread Owen Nichols
Hi Anthony, thank you for bringing your concern. If there is consensus from the Geode community that your proposed fix satisfies the “critical fixes” rule, I will be happy to bring it to the release/1.10.0 release branch. Regards Dick & Owen > On Sep 6, 2019, at 2:18 PM, Anthony Baker wrote:

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Geode 1.9.1

2019-09-06 Thread Owen Nichols
the release possible. Regards, Owen Nichols and Kirk Lund on behalf of the Apache Geode team

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1.RC3

2019-09-05 Thread Owen Nichols
9, at 3:25 PM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > Changing my vote to +1. > > Verified: > > - No binaries in source releases > - Signatures and hashes are correct > - Correct LICENSE and NOTICE files > - Builds from source > > > Anthony > > >> On

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1.RC3

2019-09-05 Thread Owen Nichols
l 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 Fri, Aug

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1.RC3

2019-09-03 Thread Owen Nichols
tar >> file, but it is emply if you try to unzip it. >> >> -Dan >> >> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 11:11 AM Owen Nichols wrote: >> >>> Hello Geode dev community, >>> >>> This is a release candidate for Apache Geode, version 1.9.1.RC3. >>

[VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1.RC3

2019-08-30 Thread Owen Nichols
Hello Geode dev community, This is a release candidate for Apache Geode, version 1.9.1.RC3. Thanks to all the community members for their contributions to this release! Please do a review and give your feedback. The deadline is 3PM PST Thu, September 05 2019. Release notes can be found at:

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1 RC2

2019-08-30 Thread Owen Nichols
wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On 8/29/19 5:02 PM, Owen Nichols wrote: >>> Hello Geode dev community, >>> >>> This is a release candidate for Apache Geode, version 1.9.1.RC2. >>> Thanks to all the community members for their contributions to this >> re

[VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1 RC2

2019-08-29 Thread Owen Nichols
Hello Geode dev community, This is a release candidate for Apache Geode, version 1.9.1.RC2. Thanks to all the community members for their contributions to this release! Please do a review and give your feedback. The deadline is 3PM PST Wed, September 04 2019. Release notes can be found at:

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1 RC1

2019-08-29 Thread Owen Nichols
; -Dan >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 2:42 PM Kirk Lund wrote: >>>> >>>>> SBDG 1.2 is currently in RC and cannot be changed to depend on Geode >> 1.10. >>>>> It must depend on Geode 1.9 or 1.9.1. >&g

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1 RC1

2019-08-29 Thread Owen Nichols
d on Geode 1.10. >>> It must depend on Geode 1.9 or 1.9.1. >>> >>> So if we want to provide the logging fixes for SBDG 1.2 then we must >>> release Geode 1.9.1. >>> >>> Let's open a new vote for releasing Geode 1.9.1. >>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

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

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1 RC1

2019-08-28 Thread Owen Nichols
embers with +1 votes and a majority of +1 votes. The matter of what to do next is referred back to the original DISCUSS thread that proposed 1.9.1. -Owen & Kirk > On Aug 22, 2019, at 6:10 PM, Owen Nichols wrote: > > Hello Geode dev community, > > This is a release candidate for Ap

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

2019-08-27 Thread Owen Nichols
There appears to be consensus that these are critical fixes. The following commits have been brought into release/1.10.0 as the critical fix for GEODE-7088 : git cherry-pick -x

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

2019-08-26 Thread Owen Nichols
Udo, it sounds like you would like to modify the release process to start the stabilization work on develop (rather than cutting the branch as the first step). I would love to hear community opinion on this proposal. For 1.10, in the time we have cherry-picked 11 fixes to release/1.10.0,

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

2019-08-26 Thread Owen Nichols
Hi Ryan, thank you for bringing your concern. Geode's release process dictates a time-based schedule to cut release branches. The release/1.10.0 branch was already cut

Re: Propose including GEODE-7085 in 1.10

2019-08-26 Thread Owen Nichols
There appears to be consensus that this is a critical fix. The following commits have been brought into support/1.10.0 as the critical fix for GEODE-7085 : git cherry-pick -x

[VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.1 RC1

2019-08-22 Thread Owen Nichols
amples: ./gradlew -PgeodeReleaseUrl=https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geode/1.9.1.RC1 -PgeodeRepositoryUrl=https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeode-1055 build runAll Regards Owen Nichols & Kirk Lund

New release branch for Apache Geode 1.9.1

2019-08-21 Thread Owen Nichols
ase branch. If no concerns are raised, we will start with the voting for the release candidate soon. Regards Owen Nichols & Kirk Lund [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4a7a6bc24ad7b9eb535fa3f411b4a5fdc2fc33fe5da76d259f0ebfce@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E <https://lists.apach

Re: I propose including the fix for GEODE-3780 in 1.10

2019-08-19 Thread Owen Nichols
sues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3870>. GEODE-3870 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3870> has been marked as to 'resolved in' 1.10.0. -Owen > On Aug 19, 2019, at 9:44 AM, Owen Nichols wrote: > > Hi Bruce, unfortunately 8e9b04470264983d0aa1c7900f6e9be2374549d

Re: I propose including the fix for GEODE-3780 in 1.10

2019-08-19 Thread Owen Nichols
gt; there's no way to test it via Concourse. > > On 8/19/19 9:44 AM, Owen Nichols wrote: >> Hi Bruce, unfortunately 8e9b04470264983d0aa1c7900f6e9be2374549d9 does not >> cherry-pick cleanly into release/1.10.0. Can you please open a PR against >> release/1.10.0? >>

Re: I propose including the fix for GEODE-3780 in 1.10

2019-08-19 Thread Owen Nichols
urmann > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> it's a regression in 1.10 and a serious problem. >> >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:38 AM Bruce Schuchardt >> wrote: >> >>> It sounds like Udo is okay with this now. Any other concerns? >>> &g

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

2019-08-19 Thread Owen Nichols
I will pair with you on a 1.9.1 release. > On Aug 19, 2019, at 9:23 AM, Kirk Lund wrote: > > I volunteer to pair with a more experienced release manager for 1.9.1. > Anyone willing to mentor me on this? > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 7:53 AM Anthony Baker wrote: > >> Yep. Get a release manager,

Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

2019-08-19 Thread Owen Nichols
There appears to be consensus that this is a critical fix. The following commit has been brought into release/1.10.0 as the critical fix for GEODE-7079 : git cherry-pick -x

Re: I propose including the fix for GEODE-3780 in 1.10

2019-08-17 Thread Owen Nichols
Hi Bruce, thank you for bringing your concern. Geode's release process dictates a time-based schedule to cut release branches. The release/1.10.0 branch was already cut 2

Re: Unit tests are hanging?

2019-08-10 Thread Owen Nichols
Done (increased from 10 minutes to 20 minutes for PR pipeline, and changed from none to 20 minutes for develop pipeline). -Owen > On Aug 10, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Kirk Lund wrote: > > I just saw the Build job exceed timeout during pmdMain so I think we need > to increase its timeout as well. >

Re: SSL Alias Support for JMX Connections

2019-08-09 Thread Owen Nichols
wrote: > > +1 > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 9:38 AM Jason Huynh wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:12 PM Owen Nichols wrote: >> >>> Hi Juan and Sai, thank you for bringing your concern. >>> >>> Geode's release process d

Re: SSL Alias Support for JMX Connections

2019-08-08 Thread Owen Nichols
Hi Juan and Sai, thank you for bringing your concern. Geode's release process dictates a time-based schedule to cut release branches. The release/1.10.0 branch was

Re: Fix for ClassCastException when using Logback for 1.10.0

2019-08-08 Thread Owen Nichols
There appears to be consensus that this is a critical fix. The following commit has been brought into support/1.10.0 as the critical fix for GEODE-7050 : git cherry-pick -x

Re: Fix for NPE during forceDisconnect candidate for 1.10.0

2019-08-08 Thread Owen Nichols
Hi Kirk and Mark, thank you for bringing your concern. Our “critical fixes” rule allows critical fixes to be brought to the release branch by proposal on the dev list, as you have just done. If there is consensus from the Geode community that this NPE fix satisfies the “critical fixes” rule,

Re: Another change for 1.10.0 release

2019-08-08 Thread Owen Nichols
e: > > +1 > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 6:41 PM Ryan McMahon wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:40 AM John Blum wrote: >> >>> +1 for Dan's changes. >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:28 AM Owen Nichols >> wrote:

Re: Another change for 1.10.0 release

2019-08-08 Thread Owen Nichols
Hi Dan, thank you for bringing your concern. Our “critical fixes” rule allows critical fixes to be brought to the release branch by proposal on the dev list [as you have just done]. If there is consensus from the Geode community that this GEODE-7055 fix satisfies the “critical fixes” rule,

Re: [DISCUSS] Time to cut Geode 1.10.0?

2019-08-07 Thread Owen Nichols
uld prefer that it is resolved in this >> release and not wait for 3-4 months. >> >> Regards >> Naba >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:00 PM Owen Nichols wrote: >> >>> Hi Kirk, thank you for bringing your concern. >>> >

Re: [DISCUSS] Time to cut Geode 1.10.0?

2019-08-06 Thread Owen Nichols
; Ideally this is kept up to date during development as the dependencies >> change or are added but this often is missed and needs to be reconciled on >> develop before we cut a release branch. >> >> -Dick >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019

Re: New release branch for Apache Geode 1.10.0

2019-08-02 Thread Owen Nichols
ps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7001> has been marked as 'resolved in' 1.10.0. -Owen > On Aug 2, 2019, at 5:21 PM, Michael Oleske wrote: > > Naba's concern was this PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3880 which > has been merged to develop > > -michael > &

Re: New release branch for Apache Geode 1.10.0

2019-08-02 Thread Owen Nichols
Hi Naba, thank you for bringing your concern. Our current process dictates a time-based schedule to cut release branches. Once cut, the “critical fixes” rule allows

Re: [DISCUSS] Time to cut Geode 1.10.0?

2019-07-30 Thread Owen Nichols
> or I want the code to match the documentation. >> The fix in GEODE-7013 changes the code to match the existing documentation, >> so we don't have to change the documentation >> (which would have needed to be cherry-picked into our 1.10 release branch). >> >&g

Re: [DISCUSS] Time to cut Geode 1.10.0?

2019-07-30 Thread Owen Nichols
Our "critical issue” rule has the effect that the bar to commit to develop is “low”, but the bar to cherry-pick to support branch is “very high”. Contributors could plan around this disparity more easily if any of the following were true: - releases were more frequent - planned cut date of

Re: Assigning Jira Issues

2019-07-29 Thread Owen Nichols
You are now assigned :) By the way, this ticket is in an area of code I’m familiar with. Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions or for code review. > On Jul 29, 2019, at 9:55 AM, Owen Nichols wrote: > > Welcome to the Geode community, Alex! We’d love to have

Re: Assigning Jira Issues

2019-07-29 Thread Owen Nichols
Welcome to the Geode community, Alex! We’d love to have your help looking at this ticket. I wasn’t able to find an existing Jira account for “agrisham”. To use Geode JIRA, you first need to sign up for an apache account, then I can

Re: [DISCUSS] Time to cut Geode 1.10.0?

2019-07-26 Thread Owen Nichols
> I was expecting more discussion around this. I have some objections to the > current approach/design. I encourage you to start a [DISCUSS] thread! Also, thank you for the reminder that not everyone has been closely following the recent Cluster Management Service PRs, and since the original

[DISCUSS] feedback on new experimental Cluster Management Service

2019-07-26 Thread Owen Nichols
Starting with discussions over a year ago, the Geode community recognized the need for a new API for cluster management and cluster configuration management. Currently this requires a mix of properties, xml files, and gfsh commands. The envisioned “v2” API would expose identical REST and Java

Re: [DISCUSS] Adoption of a Coding Standard

2019-06-24 Thread Owen Nichols
I like the idea of a recommended reading list for Geode contributors. My concerns around adopting broad standards and guidelines that can’t be automatically checked & applied are twofold: a) what is the policy regarding existing code? Is every PR going forward expected to bring every file it

Re: Unnecessary uses of final on local variables

2019-06-18 Thread Owen Nichols
I recommend: * Use final if you want to * Don’t -1 someone’s PR because they did or didn’t use final. Personally, there is one case where I like to use final on a local variable: forcing the compiler to tell me if I’ve covered all code paths. Here’s a very simple example: final int x; if

Re: [DISCUSS] Disable merge for failing pull requests

2019-06-04 Thread Owen Nichols
I’d like to follow up on this discussion from late last year. Six months ago, Kirk wrote: > After we get it more consistently GREEN, I would be willing to change my vote > to +1. While we’re still not perfect, I have noticed that PR checks go green much more consistently now than they did

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

2019-05-31 Thread Owen Nichols
I’ve almost never seen a PR where this checklist was filled out. Either the PR is created with the original boilerplate intact (or sometimes it’s deleted entirely). I feel like this wall of boilerplate discourages contributors from instead using that space to describe their change and add

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

2019-05-31 Thread Owen Nichols
Personally, I do not force-push to my PRs once any review comments have been accumulated, for the reasons you mention. Not sure if some people just force-push out of habit, or if the requirement for initial commit to be squashed creates some fear. I would go a step further and suggest that

Re: [DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR

2019-05-31 Thread Owen Nichols
cob Barrett wrote: > > >> 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. > > Where is this listed as a requirement? The link you sent before offere

Re: [DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR

2019-05-31 Thread Owen Nichols
apache.org/foundation/voting.html . "code modification" == > "every PR" is a interpretation that I think would bring the project to a > grinding halt. > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 9:01 AM Jacob Barrett wrote: > >> >> >>> On May 31, 2019, a

Re: [DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR

2019-05-31 Thread Owen Nichols
gt; On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 10:12 PM Jacob Barrett > wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 30, 2019, at 4:47 PM, Owen Nichols wrote: > > > > > > Some folks have found it really helpful to have the PR author schedule > a > > walk-through of th

Re: [DISCUSS] Criteria for PMC, committers

2019-05-31 Thread Owen Nichols
> there isn’t a problem. I don’t think we are. I think we have a problem. > > -Jake > > >> On May 30, 2019, at 4:17 PM, Owen Nichols wrote: >> >> A 6-month waiting period from committer to PMC is tempting because it’s easy >> to implement, bu

Re: [DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR

2019-05-30 Thread Owen Nichols
xperience is different but I find it hard enough to get even one > person to review my pull requests. I've resorted to merging minor changes > without a review a few times due to lack of response. > > > On 5/30/19 3:51 PM, Owen Nichols wrote: >> It seems common for Geode PRs to

Re: [DISCUSS] Criteria for PMC, committers

2019-05-30 Thread Owen Nichols
A 6-month waiting period from committer to PMC is tempting because it’s easy to implement, but as you described it yourself, it is arbitrary, which ultimately de-values what it means to be a member of the Geode PMC. The bottom of https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html explains why The

[DISCUSS] require reviews before merging a PR

2019-05-30 Thread Owen Nichols
It seems common for Geode PRs to get merged with only a single green checkmark in GitHub. According to https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html we should not be merging PRs with fewer than 3 green checkmarks. Consensus is a fundamental value in doing things The Apache Way. A single +1

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

2019-05-29 Thread Owen Nichols
mation rather than an > exception class name. > > Regards > Nabarun Nag > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:08 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > >> This example came from https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-6796 >> in which the submitter assumed that Geode was deliberately emit

Re: [DISCUSS] Criteria for PMC, committers

2019-05-29 Thread Owen Nichols
I don’t see a compelling reason for Geode to make a distinction between committer and PMC member. If you have the power to merge PRs, you are a steward of the codebase; we need to be able to trust that you have Geode’s best interests at heart and will adhere to our practices. PMC membership

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

2019-05-28 Thread Owen Nichols
’, is that correct? > On May 28, 2019, at 10:03 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: > > 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: >>

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

2019-05-25 Thread Owen Nichols
Here’s an example of a message that was logged before Jack’s change: l192.168.99.1: nodename nor servname provided, or not known Here’s what it will look like now with .toString() instead of .getMessage(): java.net.UnknownHostException: l192.168.99.1: nodename nor servname provided, or not

Re: Changing external methods to no longer throw UnsupportedOperationException

2019-05-23 Thread Owen Nichols
+1 I see no semantic difference between adding a new method vs implementing a stub that previously threw UnsupportedOperationException > On May 23, 2019, at 12:56 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote: > > +1 to implementing this method. > > There is no plausible reason NOT to implement this. > > --Udo >

Re: [DISCUSS] reduce PR checks to JDK11 only

2019-05-20 Thread Owen Nichols
from the jdk 8 class files. The >>> byte >>>> codes are different for jdk 11. So by pull requests runs only happening >>> on >>>> jdk 11 we will lose coverage. These tests catch if changed the >>> serializable >>>> format of classes. I think i

Re: [DISCUSS] reduce PR checks to JDK11 only

2019-05-19 Thread Owen Nichols
changed the serializable > format of classes. I think if the "golden" checksums were regenerated with > jdk 11 then these tests could be enabled when run on jdk 11. Others on the > dev list may have more of the details. > > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 5:31 PM Owen Nichols w

Re: [DISCUSS] is it time to make Windows tests gating?

2019-05-17 Thread Owen Nichols
e Bender >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> +1 this needs to happen. I hope that doesn't cause too much pain for >>> the >>>>> dev team, but the native client team has a hard requirement that all >>> our >>>>> stuff works properly

Re: [DISCUSS] run Windows tests concurrently with Linux tests in main pipeline

2019-05-16 Thread Owen Nichols
view that would result is mitigated by the “JDK 11 only” PR https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3598 which hides JDK8 tests in the main view to restore sanity. > On May 15, 2019, at 6:18 PM, Owen Nichols wrote: > > Currently we wait to run the Windows tests for a commit until all

Re: [DISCUSS] is it time to make Windows tests gating?

2019-05-16 Thread Owen Nichols
2:23 PM Bruce Schuchardt > wrote: > >> big +1, as long as artifacts of failed runs can be downloaded >> >> On 5/15/19 6:28 PM, Owen Nichols wrote: >>> For a very long time we’ve had Windows tests in the main pipeline >> (hidden away, not in the default view), but

Re: [DISCUSS] reduce PR checks to JDK11 only

2019-05-16 Thread Owen Nichols
May 15, 2019 at 6:09 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > >> Currently every PR commit triggers both JDK8 and JDK11 versions of each >> test job. I propose that we can eliminate the JDK8 version of each check. >> In the extremely rare case where a code change breaks on Java 8 bu

[DISCUSS] is it time to make Windows tests gating?

2019-05-15 Thread Owen Nichols
For a very long time we’ve had Windows tests in the main pipeline (hidden away, not in the default view), but the pipeline proceeds to publish regardless of whether Windows tests fail or even run at all. Now seems like a good time to review whether to: a) treat Windows tests as first-class

[DISCUSS] run Windows tests concurrently with Linux tests in main pipeline

2019-05-15 Thread Owen Nichols
Currently we wait to run the Windows tests for a commit until all the Linux tests have passed. This results in unnecessarily long feedback time to know if a commit passed on Windows. The only benefit of staggering is a small efficiency in resource usage when a breaking commit is merged to

[DISCUSS] reduce PR checks to JDK11 only

2019-05-15 Thread Owen Nichols
Currently every PR commit triggers both JDK8 and JDK11 versions of each test job. I propose that we can eliminate the JDK8 version of each check. In the extremely rare case where a code change breaks on Java 8 but works fine on Java 11, it would still be caught by the main pipeline (just as

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Geode 1.9.0

2019-04-25 Thread Owen Nichols
<https://geode.apache.org/releases/> The release documentation is available at: https://geode.apache.org/docs/guide/19/about_geode.html <https://geode.apache.org/docs/guide/19/about_geode.html> We would like to thank all the contributors that made the release possible. Regards, Owen N

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.0 RC4

2019-04-24 Thread Owen Nichols
It's past the announced deadline and we have enough votes to close the vote. Voting status == +1: 6 binding votes * Dan Smith (PMC member) * Dave Barnes (PMC member) * Owen Nichols (PMC member) * Ryan McMahon (PMC member) * Dick Cavender (PMC member) * Nabarun Nag (PMC Member) * Charlie

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.0 RC4

2019-04-23 Thread Owen Nichols
e-release-check against the repo. > > -Dan > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 5:00 PM Owen Nichols <mailto:onich...@pivotal.io>> wrote: > >> Hello, Geode dev community, >> >> >> This is the fourth release candidate for Apache Geode, version 1.9.0. >

Request for bulk transition permission in Geode Jira

2019-04-22 Thread Owen Nichols
As per Geode release manager instructions, I will need to bulk-transition resolved issues to completed (once we have voted to release a 1.9.0 RC). Please grant me Jira 'bulk-transition’ permissions. Thanks, -Owen

[VOTE] Apache Geode 1.9.0 RC4

2019-04-19 Thread Owen Nichols
Hello, Geode dev community, This is the fourth release candidate for Apache Geode, version 1.9.0. Thanks to all the community members for their contributions to this release! Please do a review and give your feedback. The deadline is before 3 PM PST Wed April 24th, 2019. 1.9.0 resolves 296

Re: Propose GEODE-6544 fix for release 1.9.0

2019-04-19 Thread Owen Nichols
Hi Aaron, Kirk and Geode community, FYI, 1.9.0.RC4 has already been tagged and is being prepared for a VOTE email to go out later today. [As usual] if you or anyone else feels that 1.9.0 should not ship without this or other changes, you may cast a “-1” vote once you receive the 1.9.0.RC4 VOTE

Request for access to upload Apache Geode artifacts to Docker Hub

2019-04-19 Thread Owen Nichols
To prepare the 1.9.0 RC4 release, the instructions say I need to request dockerhub access. My dockerhub account is: onichols Email: onich...@pivotal.io Thanks!

Request wiki edit permission

2019-04-10 Thread Owen Nichols
Hi, my Apache LDAP username is onichols. I would like to request permission to edit https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE wiki pages.

Re: 1.9 release date

2019-03-28 Thread Owen Nichols
The daily trigger was inadvertently lost when the 1.9.0 release branch was re-cut. I’ve just restored it. > On Mar 1, 2019, at 4:33 PM, Owen Nichols wrote: > > Definitely makes sense to have some soak time, as it appears we just reached > “code complete” this morning. >

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

2019-03-22 Thread Owen Nichols
t;>>>>>>>> experimental features as they are right now? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Dan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 2:38 PM Dick Cavender >>>>>>>

  1   2   >