Re: Backwards compatibility for 1.1

2016-11-02 Thread Dan Smith
+1 for getting Bruc'e's backwards compatibility testing framework in! -Dan On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Anilkumar Gingade wrote: > Right, to be enterprise class software product, it needs to be backward > compatible...We also need to consider rolling upgrade of the

Re: Backwards compatibility for 1.1

2016-11-02 Thread Anilkumar Gingade
Right, to be enterprise class software product, it needs to be backward compatible...We also need to consider rolling upgrade of the system Thanks, Dan, Bruce for the write-up and frame-work... -Anil. On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:37 AM, William Markito Oliveira < william.mark...@gmail.com>

Re: Backwards compatibility for 1.1

2016-11-02 Thread William Markito Oliveira
+1 On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar wrote: > +1 for maintaining backwards compatibility. > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Mark Bretl wrote: > > > +1 for backward compatibility with Geode releases. > > > > --Mark > > > > On Wed,

Re: Backwards compatibility for 1.1

2016-11-02 Thread Swapnil Bawaskar
+1 for maintaining backwards compatibility. On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Mark Bretl wrote: > +1 for backward compatibility with Geode releases. > > --Mark > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Kenneth Howe wrote: > > > +1 to Dan > > +1 to Bruce - the

Re: Backwards compatibility for 1.1

2016-11-02 Thread Mark Bretl
+1 for backward compatibility with Geode releases. --Mark On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Kenneth Howe wrote: > +1 to Dan > +1 to Bruce - the distributedTest extensions for backward compatibility > would great > > > On Nov 1, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Bruce Schuchardt

Re: Backwards compatibility for 1.1

2016-11-02 Thread Kenneth Howe
+1 to Dan +1 to Bruce - the distributedTest extensions for backward compatibility would great > On Nov 1, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > > +1 > > I still have the backward-compatibility distributedTest extensions that I > could contribute. The extension

Re: Backwards compatibility for 1.1

2016-11-01 Thread Jianxia Chen
+1 On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > Hi, > > We made a lot of changes in 1.0 that broke compatibility with old versions > of gemfire for various reasons (package renaming, changing membership > system). I just wanted to confirm that starting with 1.1, we're

Re: Backwards compatibility for 1.1

2016-11-01 Thread Darrel Schneider
yes +1 On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > Hi, > > We made a lot of changes in 1.0 that broke compatibility with old versions > of gemfire for various reasons (package renaming, changing membership > system). I just wanted to confirm that starting with 1.1,