Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

[Juan José Ramos]

Thanks Owen!!.

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 3:44 PM Owen Nichols  wrote:

> There appears to be consensus that this is a critical fix.
>
> The following commit has been brought into release/1.10.0 <
> https://github.com/apache/geode/tree/release/1.10.0> as the critical fix
> for GEODE-7079 :
>
> git cherry-pick -x 6f4bbbd96bcecdb82cf7753ce1dae9fa6baebf9b <
> https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/6f4bbbd96bcecdb82cf7753ce1dae9fa6baebf9b
> >
>
> GEODE-7079  has been
> changed to 'resolved in' 1.10.0.
>
> -Owen
>
> > On Aug 19, 2019, at 2:39 AM, Juan José Ramos  wrote:
> >
> > Hello team,
> >
> > Just following up on my proposal to include GEODE-7079 in release
> 1.10.0, I
> > think there's enough consensus at this point (+1: 7, +0: 1), can we
> cherry
> > pick commit *6f4bbbd [1]* into the release branch?.
> > Best regards.
> >
> >
> > [1]:
> >
> https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/6f4bbbd96bcecdb82cf7753ce1dae9fa6baebf9b
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:17 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:
> >
> >> I'm changing my vote to +1 on this issue.
> >>
> >> The ONLY reason I'm changing my vote is to add to the cleanliness of the
> >> code of the release. I do 100% disagree with the continual scope creep
> >> that we have been incurring on this release branch.
> >>
> >> --Udo
> >>
> >> On 8/15/19 12:34 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
> >>> +1 to merging Juan's fix for GEODE-7079. I've seen systems taken down
> by
> >>> rapidly filling up the logs in the past, this does seem to be a
> critical
> >>> fix from the perspective of system stability.
> >>>
> >>> Also, this is the change, which doesn't seem particularly risky to me.
> >>>
> >>> -  ConflationKey key = new
> >>> ConflationKey(gsEvent.getRegion().getFullPath(),
> >>> +  ConflationKey key = new
> ConflationKey(gsEvent.getRegionPath(),
> >>>
> >>> -Dan
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:23 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:
> >>>
>  Whilst I agree with "*finish* when we believe the quality of the
> release
>  branch is sufficient", I disagree that we should have cut a branch and
>  continue to patch that branch with non-critical fixes. i.e this issue
>  has been around for a while and has no averse side effects. Issues
> like
>  GEODE-7081, which is new due to a new commit, AND it has critical
>  stability implications on the server, that I can agree we should
> include
>  in a potential release branch.
> 
>  Otherwise we can ALWAYS argue that said release branch is not of
>  "sufficient" quality, especially if there are numerous existing JIRA's
>  pertaining to bugs already in the system.
> 
>  To quote Juan's original email:
> 
>  /"Note: *no events are lost (even without the fix)* but, if the region
>  takes//
>  //a while to recover, the logs  for the member can grow pretty quickly
>  due to//
>  //the continuously thrown *NPEs.*"/
> 
>  In addition to this, if there is a commit in a cut release branch,
> which
>  is requiring us to continuously patching the release branch, in order
> to
>  stabilize that feature/fix, maybe we should consider reverting that
> fix
>  and release it at a later stage, when it is believed that this fix is
>  more stable and have better, more comprehensive test coverage.
> 
>  So far, GEODE-7081, does not have me convinced that it is critical. OR
>  maybe it is the latter of my options, where it is a stabilization
> commit
>  to a new feature, which begs the question, should we have accepted the
>  original feature commit if there are all manner of side effects which
> we
>  are only discovering.
> 
>  --Udo
> 
>  On 8/15/19 11:08 AM, Anthony Baker wrote:
> > 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 needed) on a
>  known date and we *finish* when new believe the quality of the release
>  branch is sufficient.  Given the number of important fixes being
> >> requested,
>  I’m not sure we are there yet.
> > I think the release branch concept has merit because it allows us to
>  isolate ongoing work from the changes needed for a release.
> > +1 for including GEODE-7079.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> >
> >> On Aug 15, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer 
>  wrote:
> >> Seems everyone is in favor or including a /*non-critical*/ fix to an
>  already cut branch of the a potential release...
> >> Am I missing something?
> >>
> >> Why cut a release at all... just have a perpetual cycle of fixes
> added
>  to develop and users can chose what nightly snapshot build they would

Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

[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 6f4bbbd96bcecdb82cf7753ce1dae9fa6baebf9b 


GEODE-7079  has been changed 
to 'resolved in' 1.10.0.

-Owen

> On Aug 19, 2019, at 2:39 AM, Juan José Ramos  wrote:
> 
> Hello team,
> 
> Just following up on my proposal to include GEODE-7079 in release 1.10.0, I
> think there's enough consensus at this point (+1: 7, +0: 1), can we cherry
> pick commit *6f4bbbd [1]* into the release branch?.
> Best regards.
> 
> 
> [1]:
> https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/6f4bbbd96bcecdb82cf7753ce1dae9fa6baebf9b
> 
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:17 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:
> 
>> I'm changing my vote to +1 on this issue.
>> 
>> The ONLY reason I'm changing my vote is to add to the cleanliness of the
>> code of the release. I do 100% disagree with the continual scope creep
>> that we have been incurring on this release branch.
>> 
>> --Udo
>> 
>> On 8/15/19 12:34 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>>> +1 to merging Juan's fix for GEODE-7079. I've seen systems taken down by
>>> rapidly filling up the logs in the past, this does seem to be a critical
>>> fix from the perspective of system stability.
>>> 
>>> Also, this is the change, which doesn't seem particularly risky to me.
>>> 
>>> -  ConflationKey key = new
>>> ConflationKey(gsEvent.getRegion().getFullPath(),
>>> +  ConflationKey key = new ConflationKey(gsEvent.getRegionPath(),
>>> 
>>> -Dan
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:23 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:
>>> 
 Whilst I agree with "*finish* when we believe the quality of the release
 branch is sufficient", I disagree that we should have cut a branch and
 continue to patch that branch with non-critical fixes. i.e this issue
 has been around for a while and has no averse side effects. Issues like
 GEODE-7081, which is new due to a new commit, AND it has critical
 stability implications on the server, that I can agree we should include
 in a potential release branch.
 
 Otherwise we can ALWAYS argue that said release branch is not of
 "sufficient" quality, especially if there are numerous existing JIRA's
 pertaining to bugs already in the system.
 
 To quote Juan's original email:
 
 /"Note: *no events are lost (even without the fix)* but, if the region
 takes//
 //a while to recover, the logs  for the member can grow pretty quickly
 due to//
 //the continuously thrown *NPEs.*"/
 
 In addition to this, if there is a commit in a cut release branch, which
 is requiring us to continuously patching the release branch, in order to
 stabilize that feature/fix, maybe we should consider reverting that fix
 and release it at a later stage, when it is believed that this fix is
 more stable and have better, more comprehensive test coverage.
 
 So far, GEODE-7081, does not have me convinced that it is critical. OR
 maybe it is the latter of my options, where it is a stabilization commit
 to a new feature, which begs the question, should we have accepted the
 original feature commit if there are all manner of side effects which we
 are only discovering.
 
 --Udo
 
 On 8/15/19 11:08 AM, Anthony Baker wrote:
> 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 needed) on a
 known date and we *finish* when new believe the quality of the release
 branch is sufficient.  Given the number of important fixes being
>> requested,
 I’m not sure we are there yet.
> I think the release branch concept has merit because it allows us to
 isolate ongoing work from the changes needed for a release.
> +1 for including GEODE-7079.
> 
> Anthony
> 
> 
>> On Aug 15, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer 
 wrote:
>> Seems everyone is in favor or including a /*non-critical*/ fix to an
 already cut branch of the a potential release...
>> Am I missing something?
>> 
>> Why cut a release at all... just have a perpetual cycle of fixes added
 to develop and users can chose what nightly snapshot build they would
>> want
 to use..
>> I'm voting -1 on a non-critical issue, which is existing and worst
 effect is to fill logs will NPE logs... (yes, not something we want).
>> I believed that we (as a Geode community) agreed that once a release
 has been cut, only critical issue fixes will 

Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

[Juan José Ramos]

Hello team,

Just following up on my proposal to include GEODE-7079 in release 1.10.0, I
think there's enough consensus at this point (+1: 7, +0: 1), can we cherry
pick commit *6f4bbbd [1]* into the release branch?.
Best regards.


[1]:
https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/6f4bbbd96bcecdb82cf7753ce1dae9fa6baebf9b

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:17 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:

> I'm changing my vote to +1 on this issue.
>
> The ONLY reason I'm changing my vote is to add to the cleanliness of the
> code of the release. I do 100% disagree with the continual scope creep
> that we have been incurring on this release branch.
>
> --Udo
>
> On 8/15/19 12:34 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
> > +1 to merging Juan's fix for GEODE-7079. I've seen systems taken down by
> > rapidly filling up the logs in the past, this does seem to be a critical
> > fix from the perspective of system stability.
> >
> > Also, this is the change, which doesn't seem particularly risky to me.
> >
> > -  ConflationKey key = new
> > ConflationKey(gsEvent.getRegion().getFullPath(),
> > +  ConflationKey key = new ConflationKey(gsEvent.getRegionPath(),
> >
> > -Dan
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:23 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:
> >
> >> Whilst I agree with "*finish* when we believe the quality of the release
> >> branch is sufficient", I disagree that we should have cut a branch and
> >> continue to patch that branch with non-critical fixes. i.e this issue
> >> has been around for a while and has no averse side effects. Issues like
> >> GEODE-7081, which is new due to a new commit, AND it has critical
> >> stability implications on the server, that I can agree we should include
> >> in a potential release branch.
> >>
> >> Otherwise we can ALWAYS argue that said release branch is not of
> >> "sufficient" quality, especially if there are numerous existing JIRA's
> >> pertaining to bugs already in the system.
> >>
> >> To quote Juan's original email:
> >>
> >> /"Note: *no events are lost (even without the fix)* but, if the region
> >> takes//
> >> //a while to recover, the logs  for the member can grow pretty quickly
> >> due to//
> >> //the continuously thrown *NPEs.*"/
> >>
> >> In addition to this, if there is a commit in a cut release branch, which
> >> is requiring us to continuously patching the release branch, in order to
> >> stabilize that feature/fix, maybe we should consider reverting that fix
> >> and release it at a later stage, when it is believed that this fix is
> >> more stable and have better, more comprehensive test coverage.
> >>
> >> So far, GEODE-7081, does not have me convinced that it is critical. OR
> >> maybe it is the latter of my options, where it is a stabilization commit
> >> to a new feature, which begs the question, should we have accepted the
> >> original feature commit if there are all manner of side effects which we
> >> are only discovering.
> >>
> >> --Udo
> >>
> >> On 8/15/19 11:08 AM, Anthony Baker wrote:
> >>> 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 needed) on a
> >> known date and we *finish* when new believe the quality of the release
> >> branch is sufficient.  Given the number of important fixes being
> requested,
> >> I’m not sure we are there yet.
> >>> I think the release branch concept has merit because it allows us to
> >> isolate ongoing work from the changes needed for a release.
> >>> +1 for including GEODE-7079.
> >>>
> >>> Anthony
> >>>
> >>>
>  On Aug 15, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer 
> >> wrote:
>  Seems everyone is in favor or including a /*non-critical*/ fix to an
> >> already cut branch of the a potential release...
>  Am I missing something?
> 
>  Why cut a release at all... just have a perpetual cycle of fixes added
> >> to develop and users can chose what nightly snapshot build they would
> want
> >> to use..
>  I'm voting -1 on a non-critical issue, which is existing and worst
> >> effect is to fill logs will NPE logs... (yes, not something we want).
>  I believed that we (as a Geode community) agreed that once a release
> >> has been cut, only critical issue fixes will be included. If we continue
> >> just continually adding to the ALREADY CUT 1.10 release, where do we
> stop
> >> and when do we release...
>  --Udo
> 
>  On 8/15/19 10:19 AM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> >> amurm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Agreed to fixing this. It's impossible for a user to discover they
> >> hit an
> >> edge case that we fail to support till they are in prod and restart.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:09 AM Juan José Ramos  >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 

Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

[Udo Kohlmeyer]

I'm changing my vote to +1 on this issue.

The ONLY reason I'm changing my vote is to add to the cleanliness of the 
code of the release. I do 100% disagree with the continual scope creep 
that we have been incurring on this release branch.


--Udo

On 8/15/19 12:34 PM, Dan Smith wrote:

+1 to merging Juan's fix for GEODE-7079. I've seen systems taken down by
rapidly filling up the logs in the past, this does seem to be a critical
fix from the perspective of system stability.

Also, this is the change, which doesn't seem particularly risky to me.

-  ConflationKey key = new
ConflationKey(gsEvent.getRegion().getFullPath(),
+  ConflationKey key = new ConflationKey(gsEvent.getRegionPath(),

-Dan

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:23 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:


Whilst I agree with "*finish* when we believe the quality of the release
branch is sufficient", I disagree that we should have cut a branch and
continue to patch that branch with non-critical fixes. i.e this issue
has been around for a while and has no averse side effects. Issues like
GEODE-7081, which is new due to a new commit, AND it has critical
stability implications on the server, that I can agree we should include
in a potential release branch.

Otherwise we can ALWAYS argue that said release branch is not of
"sufficient" quality, especially if there are numerous existing JIRA's
pertaining to bugs already in the system.

To quote Juan's original email:

/"Note: *no events are lost (even without the fix)* but, if the region
takes//
//a while to recover, the logs  for the member can grow pretty quickly
due to//
//the continuously thrown *NPEs.*"/

In addition to this, if there is a commit in a cut release branch, which
is requiring us to continuously patching the release branch, in order to
stabilize that feature/fix, maybe we should consider reverting that fix
and release it at a later stage, when it is believed that this fix is
more stable and have better, more comprehensive test coverage.

So far, GEODE-7081, does not have me convinced that it is critical. OR
maybe it is the latter of my options, where it is a stabilization commit
to a new feature, which begs the question, should we have accepted the
original feature commit if there are all manner of side effects which we
are only discovering.

--Udo

On 8/15/19 11:08 AM, Anthony Baker wrote:

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 needed) on a
known date and we *finish* when new believe the quality of the release
branch is sufficient.  Given the number of important fixes being requested,
I’m not sure we are there yet.

I think the release branch concept has merit because it allows us to

isolate ongoing work from the changes needed for a release.

+1 for including GEODE-7079.

Anthony



On Aug 15, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer 

wrote:

Seems everyone is in favor or including a /*non-critical*/ fix to an

already cut branch of the a potential release...

Am I missing something?

Why cut a release at all... just have a perpetual cycle of fixes added

to develop and users can chose what nightly snapshot build they would want
to use..

I'm voting -1 on a non-critical issue, which is existing and worst

effect is to fill logs will NPE logs... (yes, not something we want).

I believed that we (as a Geode community) agreed that once a release

has been cut, only critical issue fixes will be included. If we continue
just continually adding to the ALREADY CUT 1.10 release, where do we stop
and when do we release...

--Udo

On 8/15/19 10:19 AM, Nabarun Nag wrote:

+1

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <

amurm...@apache.org>

wrote:


+1

Agreed to fixing this. It's impossible for a user to discover they

hit an

edge case that we fail to support till they are in prod and restart.

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:09 AM Juan José Ramos 
wrote:


Hello Udo,

Even if it is an existing issue I'd still consider it critical for

those

cases on which there are unprocessed events on the persistent queue

after a

restart and the region takes long to recover... you can actually see
millions of *NPEs* flooding the member's logs.
My two cents anyway, it's up to the community to make the final

decision.

Cheers.


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:58 PM Udo Kohlmeyer 

wrote:

Juan,

   From your explanation, it seems this issue is existing and not
critical. Could we possibly hold this for 1.11?

--Udo

On 8/15/19 5:29 AM, Ju@N wrote:

Hello team,

I'd like to propose including the *fix [1]* for *GEODE-7079 [2]* in

release

1.10.0.
Long story short: a *NullPointerException* can be continuously

thrown

and flood the member's logs if a serial event processor (either
*async-event-queue* or *gateway-sender*) starts processing events

from

a

Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

[Udo Kohlmeyer]

@Dan, not arguing that logs filling up with NPE's could bring a system 
down with limit disk space, or potentially swallowing important logs 
that could be helpful in root-causing issues...


I'm merely raising the question on why this bug fix should receive 
priority inclusion. It has been around for a long time and could be 
included in a subsequent release.


On 8/15/19 12:34 PM, Dan Smith wrote:

+1 to merging Juan's fix for GEODE-7079. I've seen systems taken down by
rapidly filling up the logs in the past, this does seem to be a critical
fix from the perspective of system stability.

Also, this is the change, which doesn't seem particularly risky to me.

-  ConflationKey key = new
ConflationKey(gsEvent.getRegion().getFullPath(),
+  ConflationKey key = new ConflationKey(gsEvent.getRegionPath(),

-Dan

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:23 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:


Whilst I agree with "*finish* when we believe the quality of the release
branch is sufficient", I disagree that we should have cut a branch and
continue to patch that branch with non-critical fixes. i.e this issue
has been around for a while and has no averse side effects. Issues like
GEODE-7081, which is new due to a new commit, AND it has critical
stability implications on the server, that I can agree we should include
in a potential release branch.

Otherwise we can ALWAYS argue that said release branch is not of
"sufficient" quality, especially if there are numerous existing JIRA's
pertaining to bugs already in the system.

To quote Juan's original email:

/"Note: *no events are lost (even without the fix)* but, if the region
takes//
//a while to recover, the logs  for the member can grow pretty quickly
due to//
//the continuously thrown *NPEs.*"/

In addition to this, if there is a commit in a cut release branch, which
is requiring us to continuously patching the release branch, in order to
stabilize that feature/fix, maybe we should consider reverting that fix
and release it at a later stage, when it is believed that this fix is
more stable and have better, more comprehensive test coverage.

So far, GEODE-7081, does not have me convinced that it is critical. OR
maybe it is the latter of my options, where it is a stabilization commit
to a new feature, which begs the question, should we have accepted the
original feature commit if there are all manner of side effects which we
are only discovering.

--Udo

On 8/15/19 11:08 AM, Anthony Baker wrote:

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 needed) on a
known date and we *finish* when new believe the quality of the release
branch is sufficient.  Given the number of important fixes being requested,
I’m not sure we are there yet.

I think the release branch concept has merit because it allows us to

isolate ongoing work from the changes needed for a release.

+1 for including GEODE-7079.

Anthony



On Aug 15, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer 

wrote:

Seems everyone is in favor or including a /*non-critical*/ fix to an

already cut branch of the a potential release...

Am I missing something?

Why cut a release at all... just have a perpetual cycle of fixes added

to develop and users can chose what nightly snapshot build they would want
to use..

I'm voting -1 on a non-critical issue, which is existing and worst

effect is to fill logs will NPE logs... (yes, not something we want).

I believed that we (as a Geode community) agreed that once a release

has been cut, only critical issue fixes will be included. If we continue
just continually adding to the ALREADY CUT 1.10 release, where do we stop
and when do we release...

--Udo

On 8/15/19 10:19 AM, Nabarun Nag wrote:

+1

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <

amurm...@apache.org>

wrote:


+1

Agreed to fixing this. It's impossible for a user to discover they

hit an

edge case that we fail to support till they are in prod and restart.

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:09 AM Juan José Ramos 
wrote:


Hello Udo,

Even if it is an existing issue I'd still consider it critical for

those

cases on which there are unprocessed events on the persistent queue

after a

restart and the region takes long to recover... you can actually see
millions of *NPEs* flooding the member's logs.
My two cents anyway, it's up to the community to make the final

decision.

Cheers.


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:58 PM Udo Kohlmeyer 

wrote:

Juan,

   From your explanation, it seems this issue is existing and not
critical. Could we possibly hold this for 1.11?

--Udo

On 8/15/19 5:29 AM, Ju@N wrote:

Hello team,

I'd like to propose including the *fix [1]* for *GEODE-7079 [2]* in

release

1.10.0.
Long story short: a *NullPointerException* can be continuously

thrown

and flood the member's logs if a 

Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

[Dan Smith]

+1 to merging Juan's fix for GEODE-7079. I've seen systems taken down by
rapidly filling up the logs in the past, this does seem to be a critical
fix from the perspective of system stability.

Also, this is the change, which doesn't seem particularly risky to me.

-  ConflationKey key = new
ConflationKey(gsEvent.getRegion().getFullPath(),
+  ConflationKey key = new ConflationKey(gsEvent.getRegionPath(),

-Dan

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:23 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:

> Whilst I agree with "*finish* when we believe the quality of the release
> branch is sufficient", I disagree that we should have cut a branch and
> continue to patch that branch with non-critical fixes. i.e this issue
> has been around for a while and has no averse side effects. Issues like
> GEODE-7081, which is new due to a new commit, AND it has critical
> stability implications on the server, that I can agree we should include
> in a potential release branch.
>
> Otherwise we can ALWAYS argue that said release branch is not of
> "sufficient" quality, especially if there are numerous existing JIRA's
> pertaining to bugs already in the system.
>
> To quote Juan's original email:
>
> /"Note: *no events are lost (even without the fix)* but, if the region
> takes//
> //a while to recover, the logs  for the member can grow pretty quickly
> due to//
> //the continuously thrown *NPEs.*"/
>
> In addition to this, if there is a commit in a cut release branch, which
> is requiring us to continuously patching the release branch, in order to
> stabilize that feature/fix, maybe we should consider reverting that fix
> and release it at a later stage, when it is believed that this fix is
> more stable and have better, more comprehensive test coverage.
>
> So far, GEODE-7081, does not have me convinced that it is critical. OR
> maybe it is the latter of my options, where it is a stabilization commit
> to a new feature, which begs the question, should we have accepted the
> original feature commit if there are all manner of side effects which we
> are only discovering.
>
> --Udo
>
> On 8/15/19 11:08 AM, Anthony Baker wrote:
> > 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 needed) on a
> known date and we *finish* when new believe the quality of the release
> branch is sufficient.  Given the number of important fixes being requested,
> I’m not sure we are there yet.
> >
> > I think the release branch concept has merit because it allows us to
> isolate ongoing work from the changes needed for a release.
> >
> > +1 for including GEODE-7079.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> >
> >> On Aug 15, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Seems everyone is in favor or including a /*non-critical*/ fix to an
> already cut branch of the a potential release...
> >>
> >> Am I missing something?
> >>
> >> Why cut a release at all... just have a perpetual cycle of fixes added
> to develop and users can chose what nightly snapshot build they would want
> to use..
> >>
> >> I'm voting -1 on a non-critical issue, which is existing and worst
> effect is to fill logs will NPE logs... (yes, not something we want).
> >>
> >> I believed that we (as a Geode community) agreed that once a release
> has been cut, only critical issue fixes will be included. If we continue
> just continually adding to the ALREADY CUT 1.10 release, where do we stop
> and when do we release...
> >>
> >> --Udo
> >>
> >> On 8/15/19 10:19 AM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> amurm...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  +1
> 
>  Agreed to fixing this. It's impossible for a user to discover they
> hit an
>  edge case that we fail to support till they are in prod and restart.
> 
>  On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:09 AM Juan José Ramos 
>  wrote:
> 
> > Hello Udo,
> >
> > Even if it is an existing issue I'd still consider it critical for
> those
> > cases on which there are unprocessed events on the persistent queue
>  after a
> > restart and the region takes long to recover... you can actually see
> > millions of *NPEs* flooding the member's logs.
> > My two cents anyway, it's up to the community to make the final
> decision.
> > Cheers.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:58 PM Udo Kohlmeyer 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Juan,
> >>
> >>   From your explanation, it seems this issue is existing and not
> >> critical. Could we possibly hold this for 1.11?
> >>
> >> --Udo
> >>
> >> On 8/15/19 5:29 AM, Ju@N wrote:
> >>> Hello team,
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to propose including the *fix [1]* for *GEODE-7079 [2]* in
> >> release
> >>> 1.10.0.
> >>> Long story short: a 

Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

[Udo Kohlmeyer]

Whilst I agree with "*finish* when we believe the quality of the release 
branch is sufficient", I disagree that we should have cut a branch and 
continue to patch that branch with non-critical fixes. i.e this issue 
has been around for a while and has no averse side effects. Issues like 
GEODE-7081, which is new due to a new commit, AND it has critical 
stability implications on the server, that I can agree we should include 
in a potential release branch.


Otherwise we can ALWAYS argue that said release branch is not of 
"sufficient" quality, especially if there are numerous existing JIRA's 
pertaining to bugs already in the system.


To quote Juan's original email:

/"Note: *no events are lost (even without the fix)* but, if the region 
takes//
//a while to recover, the logs  for the member can grow pretty quickly 
due to//

//the continuously thrown *NPEs.*"/

In addition to this, if there is a commit in a cut release branch, which 
is requiring us to continuously patching the release branch, in order to 
stabilize that feature/fix, maybe we should consider reverting that fix 
and release it at a later stage, when it is believed that this fix is 
more stable and have better, more comprehensive test coverage.


So far, GEODE-7081, does not have me convinced that it is critical. OR 
maybe it is the latter of my options, where it is a stabilization commit 
to a new feature, which begs the question, should we have accepted the 
original feature commit if there are all manner of side effects which we 
are only discovering.


--Udo

On 8/15/19 11:08 AM, Anthony Baker wrote:

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 needed) on a known date and 
we *finish* when new believe the quality of the release branch is sufficient.  
Given the number of important fixes being requested, I’m not sure we are there 
yet.

I think the release branch concept has merit because it allows us to isolate 
ongoing work from the changes needed for a release.

+1 for including GEODE-7079.

Anthony



On Aug 15, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:

Seems everyone is in favor or including a /*non-critical*/ fix to an already 
cut branch of the a potential release...

Am I missing something?

Why cut a release at all... just have a perpetual cycle of fixes added to 
develop and users can chose what nightly snapshot build they would want to use..

I'm voting -1 on a non-critical issue, which is existing and worst effect is to 
fill logs will NPE logs... (yes, not something we want).

I believed that we (as a Geode community) agreed that once a release has been 
cut, only critical issue fixes will be included. If we continue just 
continually adding to the ALREADY CUT 1.10 release, where do we stop and when 
do we release...

--Udo

On 8/15/19 10:19 AM, Nabarun Nag wrote:

+1

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann 
wrote:


+1

Agreed to fixing this. It's impossible for a user to discover they hit an
edge case that we fail to support till they are in prod and restart.

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:09 AM Juan José Ramos 
wrote:


Hello Udo,

Even if it is an existing issue I'd still consider it critical for those
cases on which there are unprocessed events on the persistent queue

after a

restart and the region takes long to recover... you can actually see
millions of *NPEs* flooding the member's logs.
My two cents anyway, it's up to the community to make the final decision.
Cheers.


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:58 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:


Juan,

  From your explanation, it seems this issue is existing and not
critical. Could we possibly hold this for 1.11?

--Udo

On 8/15/19 5:29 AM, Ju@N wrote:

Hello team,

I'd like to propose including the *fix [1]* for *GEODE-7079 [2]* in

release

1.10.0.
Long story short: a *NullPointerException* can be continuously thrown
and flood the member's logs if a serial event processor (either
*async-event-queue* or *gateway-sender*) starts processing events

from

a

recovered persistent queue before the actual region to which it was
attached is fully operational.
Note: *no events are lost (even without the fix)* but, if the region

takes

a while to recover, the logs  for the member can grow pretty quickly

due

to

the continuously thrown *NPEs.*
Best regards.

[1]:


https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/6f4bbbd96bcecdb82cf7753ce1dae9fa6baebf9b

[2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7079


--
Juan José Ramos Cassella
Senior Software Engineer
Email: jra...@pivotal.io

Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

[Murtuza Boxwala]

In this specific case, how long has this issue been in the product?  When did 
we first see it? That would give me a lot more context in gauging the 
“criticality” of this.  Juan, can you share that information?

To Udo’s point, with every change we check in, we add some risk of instability 
or at least unknown behavior. 

I’m a 0 (unable to make a decision), without some more info.

> On Aug 15, 2019, at 2:08 PM, Anthony Baker  wrote:
> 
> 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 needed) on a known date and 
> we *finish* when new believe the quality of the release branch is sufficient. 
>  Given the number of important fixes being requested, I’m not sure we are 
> there yet.
> 
> I think the release branch concept has merit because it allows us to isolate 
> ongoing work from the changes needed for a release.
> 
> +1 for including GEODE-7079.
> 
> Anthony
> 
> 
>> On Aug 15, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:
>> 
>> Seems everyone is in favor or including a /*non-critical*/ fix to an already 
>> cut branch of the a potential release...
>> 
>> Am I missing something?
>> 
>> Why cut a release at all... just have a perpetual cycle of fixes added to 
>> develop and users can chose what nightly snapshot build they would want to 
>> use..
>> 
>> I'm voting -1 on a non-critical issue, which is existing and worst effect is 
>> to fill logs will NPE logs... (yes, not something we want).
>> 
>> I believed that we (as a Geode community) agreed that once a release has 
>> been cut, only critical issue fixes will be included. If we continue just 
>> continually adding to the ALREADY CUT 1.10 release, where do we stop and 
>> when do we release...
>> 
>> --Udo
>> 
>> On 8/15/19 10:19 AM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 +1
 
 Agreed to fixing this. It's impossible for a user to discover they hit an
 edge case that we fail to support till they are in prod and restart.
 
 On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:09 AM Juan José Ramos 
 wrote:
 
> Hello Udo,
> 
> Even if it is an existing issue I'd still consider it critical for those
> cases on which there are unprocessed events on the persistent queue
 after a
> restart and the region takes long to recover... you can actually see
> millions of *NPEs* flooding the member's logs.
> My two cents anyway, it's up to the community to make the final decision.
> Cheers.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:58 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:
> 
>> Juan,
>> 
>> From your explanation, it seems this issue is existing and not
>> critical. Could we possibly hold this for 1.11?
>> 
>> --Udo
>> 
>> On 8/15/19 5:29 AM, Ju@N wrote:
>>> Hello team,
>>> 
>>> I'd like to propose including the *fix [1]* for *GEODE-7079 [2]* in
>> release
>>> 1.10.0.
>>> Long story short: a *NullPointerException* can be continuously thrown
>>> and flood the member's logs if a serial event processor (either
>>> *async-event-queue* or *gateway-sender*) starts processing events
 from
> a
>>> recovered persistent queue before the actual region to which it was
>>> attached is fully operational.
>>> Note: *no events are lost (even without the fix)* but, if the region
>> takes
>>> a while to recover, the logs  for the member can grow pretty quickly
> due
>> to
>>> the continuously thrown *NPEs.*
>>> Best regards.
>>> 
>>> [1]:
>>> 
 https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/6f4bbbd96bcecdb82cf7753ce1dae9fa6baebf9b
>>> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7079
>>> 
> 
> --
> Juan José Ramos Cassella
> Senior Software Engineer
> Email: jra...@pivotal.io
> 
> 

Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

[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 needed) on a known date and 
we *finish* when new believe the quality of the release branch is sufficient.  
Given the number of important fixes being requested, I’m not sure we are there 
yet.

I think the release branch concept has merit because it allows us to isolate 
ongoing work from the changes needed for a release.

+1 for including GEODE-7079.

Anthony


> On Aug 15, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:
> 
> Seems everyone is in favor or including a /*non-critical*/ fix to an already 
> cut branch of the a potential release...
> 
> Am I missing something?
> 
> Why cut a release at all... just have a perpetual cycle of fixes added to 
> develop and users can chose what nightly snapshot build they would want to 
> use..
> 
> I'm voting -1 on a non-critical issue, which is existing and worst effect is 
> to fill logs will NPE logs... (yes, not something we want).
> 
> I believed that we (as a Geode community) agreed that once a release has been 
> cut, only critical issue fixes will be included. If we continue just 
> continually adding to the ALREADY CUT 1.10 release, where do we stop and when 
> do we release...
> 
> --Udo
> 
> On 8/15/19 10:19 AM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>> +1
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> Agreed to fixing this. It's impossible for a user to discover they hit an
>>> edge case that we fail to support till they are in prod and restart.
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:09 AM Juan José Ramos 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Hello Udo,
 
 Even if it is an existing issue I'd still consider it critical for those
 cases on which there are unprocessed events on the persistent queue
>>> after a
 restart and the region takes long to recover... you can actually see
 millions of *NPEs* flooding the member's logs.
 My two cents anyway, it's up to the community to make the final decision.
 Cheers.
 
 
 On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:58 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:
 
> Juan,
> 
>  From your explanation, it seems this issue is existing and not
> critical. Could we possibly hold this for 1.11?
> 
> --Udo
> 
> On 8/15/19 5:29 AM, Ju@N wrote:
>> Hello team,
>> 
>> I'd like to propose including the *fix [1]* for *GEODE-7079 [2]* in
> release
>> 1.10.0.
>> Long story short: a *NullPointerException* can be continuously thrown
>> and flood the member's logs if a serial event processor (either
>> *async-event-queue* or *gateway-sender*) starts processing events
>>> from
 a
>> recovered persistent queue before the actual region to which it was
>> attached is fully operational.
>> Note: *no events are lost (even without the fix)* but, if the region
> takes
>> a while to recover, the logs  for the member can grow pretty quickly
 due
> to
>> the continuously thrown *NPEs.*
>> Best regards.
>> 
>> [1]:
>> 
>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/6f4bbbd96bcecdb82cf7753ce1dae9fa6baebf9b
>> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7079
>> 
 
 --
 Juan José Ramos Cassella
 Senior Software Engineer
 Email: jra...@pivotal.io
 

Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

[Udo Kohlmeyer]

Seems everyone is in favor or including a /*non-critical*/ fix to an 
already cut branch of the a potential release...


Am I missing something?

Why cut a release at all... just have a perpetual cycle of fixes added 
to develop and users can chose what nightly snapshot build they would 
want to use..


I'm voting -1 on a non-critical issue, which is existing and worst 
effect is to fill logs will NPE logs... (yes, not something we want).


I believed that we (as a Geode community) agreed that once a release has 
been cut, only critical issue fixes will be included. If we continue 
just continually adding to the ALREADY CUT 1.10 release, where do we 
stop and when do we release...


--Udo

On 8/15/19 10:19 AM, Nabarun Nag wrote:

+1

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann 
wrote:


+1

Agreed to fixing this. It's impossible for a user to discover they hit an
edge case that we fail to support till they are in prod and restart.

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:09 AM Juan José Ramos 
wrote:


Hello Udo,

Even if it is an existing issue I'd still consider it critical for those
cases on which there are unprocessed events on the persistent queue

after a

restart and the region takes long to recover... you can actually see
millions of *NPEs* flooding the member's logs.
My two cents anyway, it's up to the community to make the final decision.
Cheers.


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:58 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:


Juan,

  From your explanation, it seems this issue is existing and not
critical. Could we possibly hold this for 1.11?

--Udo

On 8/15/19 5:29 AM, Ju@N wrote:

Hello team,

I'd like to propose including the *fix [1]* for *GEODE-7079 [2]* in

release

1.10.0.
Long story short: a *NullPointerException* can be continuously thrown
and flood the member's logs if a serial event processor (either
*async-event-queue* or *gateway-sender*) starts processing events

from

a

recovered persistent queue before the actual region to which it was
attached is fully operational.
Note: *no events are lost (even without the fix)* but, if the region

takes

a while to recover, the logs  for the member can grow pretty quickly

due

to

the continuously thrown *NPEs.*
Best regards.

[1]:


https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/6f4bbbd96bcecdb82cf7753ce1dae9fa6baebf9b

[2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7079



--
Juan José Ramos Cassella
Senior Software Engineer
Email: jra...@pivotal.io

Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

[Nabarun Nag]

+1

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann 
wrote:

> +1
>
> Agreed to fixing this. It's impossible for a user to discover they hit an
> edge case that we fail to support till they are in prod and restart.
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:09 AM Juan José Ramos 
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Udo,
> >
> > Even if it is an existing issue I'd still consider it critical for those
> > cases on which there are unprocessed events on the persistent queue
> after a
> > restart and the region takes long to recover... you can actually see
> > millions of *NPEs* flooding the member's logs.
> > My two cents anyway, it's up to the community to make the final decision.
> > Cheers.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:58 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:
> >
> > > Juan,
> > >
> > >  From your explanation, it seems this issue is existing and not
> > > critical. Could we possibly hold this for 1.11?
> > >
> > > --Udo
> > >
> > > On 8/15/19 5:29 AM, Ju@N wrote:
> > > > Hello team,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to propose including the *fix [1]* for *GEODE-7079 [2]* in
> > > release
> > > > 1.10.0.
> > > > Long story short: a *NullPointerException* can be continuously thrown
> > > > and flood the member's logs if a serial event processor (either
> > > > *async-event-queue* or *gateway-sender*) starts processing events
> from
> > a
> > > > recovered persistent queue before the actual region to which it was
> > > > attached is fully operational.
> > > > Note: *no events are lost (even without the fix)* but, if the region
> > > takes
> > > > a while to recover, the logs  for the member can grow pretty quickly
> > due
> > > to
> > > > the continuously thrown *NPEs.*
> > > > Best regards.
> > > >
> > > > [1]:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/6f4bbbd96bcecdb82cf7753ce1dae9fa6baebf9b
> > > > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7079
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Juan José Ramos Cassella
> > Senior Software Engineer
> > Email: jra...@pivotal.io
> >
>

Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

[Alexander Murmann]

+1

Agreed to fixing this. It's impossible for a user to discover they hit an
edge case that we fail to support till they are in prod and restart.

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:09 AM Juan José Ramos  wrote:

> Hello Udo,
>
> Even if it is an existing issue I'd still consider it critical for those
> cases on which there are unprocessed events on the persistent queue after a
> restart and the region takes long to recover... you can actually see
> millions of *NPEs* flooding the member's logs.
> My two cents anyway, it's up to the community to make the final decision.
> Cheers.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:58 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:
>
> > Juan,
> >
> >  From your explanation, it seems this issue is existing and not
> > critical. Could we possibly hold this for 1.11?
> >
> > --Udo
> >
> > On 8/15/19 5:29 AM, Ju@N wrote:
> > > Hello team,
> > >
> > > I'd like to propose including the *fix [1]* for *GEODE-7079 [2]* in
> > release
> > > 1.10.0.
> > > Long story short: a *NullPointerException* can be continuously thrown
> > > and flood the member's logs if a serial event processor (either
> > > *async-event-queue* or *gateway-sender*) starts processing events from
> a
> > > recovered persistent queue before the actual region to which it was
> > > attached is fully operational.
> > > Note: *no events are lost (even without the fix)* but, if the region
> > takes
> > > a while to recover, the logs  for the member can grow pretty quickly
> due
> > to
> > > the continuously thrown *NPEs.*
> > > Best regards.
> > >
> > > [1]:
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/6f4bbbd96bcecdb82cf7753ce1dae9fa6baebf9b
> > > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7079
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Juan José Ramos Cassella
> Senior Software Engineer
> Email: jra...@pivotal.io
>

Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

[Juan José Ramos]

Hello Udo,

Even if it is an existing issue I'd still consider it critical for those
cases on which there are unprocessed events on the persistent queue after a
restart and the region takes long to recover... you can actually see
millions of *NPEs* flooding the member's logs.
My two cents anyway, it's up to the community to make the final decision.
Cheers.


On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:58 PM Udo Kohlmeyer  wrote:

> Juan,
>
>  From your explanation, it seems this issue is existing and not
> critical. Could we possibly hold this for 1.11?
>
> --Udo
>
> On 8/15/19 5:29 AM, Ju@N wrote:
> > Hello team,
> >
> > I'd like to propose including the *fix [1]* for *GEODE-7079 [2]* in
> release
> > 1.10.0.
> > Long story short: a *NullPointerException* can be continuously thrown
> > and flood the member's logs if a serial event processor (either
> > *async-event-queue* or *gateway-sender*) starts processing events from a
> > recovered persistent queue before the actual region to which it was
> > attached is fully operational.
> > Note: *no events are lost (even without the fix)* but, if the region
> takes
> > a while to recover, the logs  for the member can grow pretty quickly due
> to
> > the continuously thrown *NPEs.*
> > Best regards.
> >
> > [1]:
> >
> https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/6f4bbbd96bcecdb82cf7753ce1dae9fa6baebf9b
> > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7079
> >
>


-- 
Juan José Ramos Cassella
Senior Software Engineer
Email: jra...@pivotal.io

Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

[Eric Shu]

+1

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:54 AM John Blum  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:30 AM Ju@N  wrote:
>
> > Hello team,
> >
> > I'd like to propose including the *fix [1]* for *GEODE-7079 [2]* in
> release
> > 1.10.0.
> > Long story short: a *NullPointerException* can be continuously thrown
> > and flood the member's logs if a serial event processor (either
> > *async-event-queue* or *gateway-sender*) starts processing events from a
> > recovered persistent queue before the actual region to which it was
> > attached is fully operational.
> > Note: *no events are lost (even without the fix)* but, if the region
> takes
> > a while to recover, the logs  for the member can grow pretty quickly due
> to
> > the continuously thrown *NPEs.*
> > Best regards.
> >
> > [1]:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/6f4bbbd96bcecdb82cf7753ce1dae9fa6baebf9b
> > [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7079
> >
> > --
> > Ju@N
> >
>
>
> --
> -John
> john.blum10101 (skype)
>

Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

[Udo Kohlmeyer]

Juan,

From your explanation, it seems this issue is existing and not 
critical. Could we possibly hold this for 1.11?


--Udo

On 8/15/19 5:29 AM, Ju@N wrote:

Hello team,

I'd like to propose including the *fix [1]* for *GEODE-7079 [2]* in release
1.10.0.
Long story short: a *NullPointerException* can be continuously thrown
and flood the member's logs if a serial event processor (either
*async-event-queue* or *gateway-sender*) starts processing events from a
recovered persistent queue before the actual region to which it was
attached is fully operational.
Note: *no events are lost (even without the fix)* but, if the region takes
a while to recover, the logs  for the member can grow pretty quickly due to
the continuously thrown *NPEs.*
Best regards.

[1]:
https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/6f4bbbd96bcecdb82cf7753ce1dae9fa6baebf9b
[2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7079

Re: Proposal to Include GEODE-7079 in 1.10.0

[John Blum]

+1

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:30 AM Ju@N  wrote:

> Hello team,
>
> I'd like to propose including the *fix [1]* for *GEODE-7079 [2]* in release
> 1.10.0.
> Long story short: a *NullPointerException* can be continuously thrown
> and flood the member's logs if a serial event processor (either
> *async-event-queue* or *gateway-sender*) starts processing events from a
> recovered persistent queue before the actual region to which it was
> attached is fully operational.
> Note: *no events are lost (even without the fix)* but, if the region takes
> a while to recover, the logs  for the member can grow pretty quickly due to
> the continuously thrown *NPEs.*
> Best regards.
>
> [1]:
>
> https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/6f4bbbd96bcecdb82cf7753ce1dae9fa6baebf9b
> [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-7079
>
> --
> Ju@N
>


-- 
-John
john.blum10101 (skype)