This is a very Mac specific command, not sure that's what you intended
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2456 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
On GitHub this doesn't render as list making reading it more challenging. My
understanding is that lettered lists are not valid markdown. I might suggest
using either unordered lists, numbers, or using html (since that is all
markdown is anyway)
[ Full content available at: https://github.com
Would `EXPECT_THROW` not work in this case?
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/347 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode-native/pull/349 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
the notifyOnly message to trigger callbacks
And computeCompressedShort should not pack inhibitAllNotifications
Thank you for submitting a contribution to Apache Geode.
In order to streamline the review of the contribution we ask you
to ensure the following steps have been
[ pull request closed by nabarunnag ]
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2453 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
@pivotal-jbarrett @smgoller @nabarunnag This changes the signing behavior a
little bit, as relates to ZIP artifacts. Please check it out.
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2457 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
Found during testing, relating to GEODE-5694, remove the zip artifacts for
better signing behavior
Authored-by: Robert Houghton
Thank you for submitting a contribution to Apache Geode.
In order to streamline the review of the contribution we ask you
to ensure the following steps have been take
Thank you for submitting a contribution to Apache Geode.
In order to streamline the review of the contribution we ask you
to ensure the following steps have been taken:
### For all changes:
- [ ] Is there a JIRA ticket associated with this PR? Is it referenced in the
commit message?
- [X] Has y
Assertion errors within invoked runnables get wrapped in an
RMIException, so untilAsserted does not recognize them as failed
assertions. Since they are treated as unexpected errors, awaitility
does not loop. Moving the awaitility inside the invocation gives us the
expected behavior.
Signed-off-by
Why does this need to be done in afterEvaluate?
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2422 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
[ pull request closed by pivotal-jbarrett ]
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2424 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
This seems more complicated than using the junitparams.Parameter approach.
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2452 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
This also makes the output of the process easier to read.
In order to streamline the review of the contribution we ask you
to ensure the following steps have been taken:
### For all changes:
- [ ] Is there a JIRA ticket associated with this PR? Is it referenced in the
commit message?
- [ ] Has
@nabarunnag this should fix the publish step in the pipeline for release 1.7.0
if you cherry pick it.
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2453 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
Co-authored-by: Dick Cavender
Co-authored-by: Jacob Barrett
Thank you for submitting a contribution to Apache Geode.
In order to streamline the review of the contribution we ask you
to ensure the following steps have been taken:
### For all changes:
- [ ] Is there a JIRA ticket associated with
Thanks. Wasn't sure it was a holdover from from pre-refactor or intentional for
a reason I didn't discern.
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2449 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
Fixed!
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2449 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
[ pull request closed by jinmeiliao ]
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2446 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache.org
I copied that from the old test. Several tests use smaller literals and
honestly, I just didn't realize that 10737418240l was equal to
MAX_OPLOG_SIZE_IN_BYTES (is it?). I'll check if they're the same and change it.
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2449 ]
This mes
Why the mixed use of `MAX_OPLOG_SIZE_IN_BYTES` and the literal `10737418240l`
from one test to the next? It's not wrong, just looks inconsistent.
[ Full content available at: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2449 ]
This message was relayed via gitbox.apache.org for
notifications@geode.apache
21 matches
Mail list logo
