You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geode.apache.org by Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io> on 2018/08/21 18:39:59 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Hi everyone!
We cut this release branch 3 months ago and then the release got stalled.
Since then weβve added another 432 commits to develop. We also have 83
resolved Jira tickets marked as 1.8 and another 91 Jira tickets that are
labeled as 1.7, but were resolved after the 1.7 branch was cut π.
Given all the above, I am proposing to update the release/1.7.0 branch to
include everything thatβs currently on develop. What are everyone's
thoughts on this?
Nabarun, you previously volunteered to be the release manager for 1.7.
Would you still be willing to fill that role if we decide to pick this back
up?
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:29 AM Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > --
> > Mike Stolz
> > Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Lead
> > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771
> > Download the GemFire book here.
> > <
> > https://content.pivotal.io/ebooks/scaling-data-services-
> with-pivotal-gemfire
> > >
> >
> > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Barbara Pruijn <bp...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > > On May 23, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Joey McAllister <jmcallister@pivotal.io
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1 for including these. They are documentation-only changes that are
> > > > applicable to 1.7.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:24 AM Karen Miller <km...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Geode devs, I think that my merges of commits for GEODE-5071 and
> > > >> GEODE-5242 really
> > > >> belong in Geode 1.7. They just missed making it in before the
> release
> > > >> branch was cut. I'm going to
> > > >> cherry pick them into the 1.7 release branch. If anyone disagrees
> > with
> > > >> this, let's discuss why, and we
> > > >> can always revert the commits. Thanks!
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hello Geode dev community,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We have created a release branch for Apache Geode 1.7.0 -
> > > "release/1.7.0"
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Please do review and raise any issue with the release branch.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If no concerns are raised we will start with voting for release
> > > candidate
> > > >>> within a week.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Regards
> > > >>> Nabarun Nag
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
I will be rebasing the release branch with develop, to bring in all the
improvements/ enhancements that went in in the past few months.
I am waiting on the tickets mentioned in this thread to be closed to start
on a fresh release branch.
Regards
Nabarun Nag
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:20 PM Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> 5619 is marked as resolved now.
>
> Is the Release Manager planning to pick these onto 1.7 or should each
> person do their own?
>
> --Jens
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the
> following
> > tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> >
> > - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> > - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> > - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged PR. What does it
> > mean?
> >
> > Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> >
> > It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is that
> > correct?
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs fixed.
> > > >
> > > > Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle and
> > > > recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is also
> > > success.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I most definitely agree!
> > > > >
> > > > > Anthony
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest OOMEs)
> > and
> > > > > > GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before
> > cutting
> > > > the
> > > > > > new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release
> > > branch
> > > > > from
> > > > > > a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Dan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io>.
5619 is marked as resolved now.
Is the Release Manager planning to pick these onto 1.7 or should each
person do their own?
--Jens
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the following
> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
>
> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged PR. What does it
> mean?
>
> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>
> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is that
> correct?
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs fixed.
> > >
> > > Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle and
> > > recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is also
> > success.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I most definitely agree!
> > > >
> > > > Anthony
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest OOMEs)
> and
> > > > > GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before
> cutting
> > > the
> > > > > new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release
> > branch
> > > > from
> > > > > a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Dan
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
Please continue marking fixed versions as 1.7.0 till the release branch is
ready.
The following tickets' fixed versions have been changed to 1.7.0 from 1.8.0
GEODE-5579
GEODE-5646
GEODE-5648
Regards
Nabarun Nag
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thank you Sai,
> We are also waiting on documentation to be updated to reflect the changes
> made by these resolved JIRAs.
> Once that is completed, I believe that we will be ready for the new branch.
>
> Regards
> Nabarun Nag
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
>>
>> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
>>
>> Sai
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
>> > the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
>> > hostname
>> > validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust
>> store.
>> >
>> > So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
>> >
>> > Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
>> >
>> > Sai
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <amurmann@pivotal.io
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
>> >>
>> >> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
>> >> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
>> >> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
>> >> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338> has
>> >> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
>> >>
>> >> Does this look right?
>> >>
>> >> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR
>> was
>> >> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
>> >> mentioned
>> >> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given the
>> >> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a update,
>> >> maybe on the PR?
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Thanks!!
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Hi Juan,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch
>> >> has
>> >> > not
>> >> > > yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Regards
>> >> > > Nabarun Nag
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
>> jramos@pivotal.io>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Hello team,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
>> >> request
>> >> > has
>> >> > > > been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
>> >> > > > Best regards.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>> >> > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > great! thanks
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>> >> > > > > > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
>> undergo
>> >> all
>> >> > > > > > compatibility and upgrade tests.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in
>> 1.7.0, as
>> >> > well
>> >> > > > as
>> >> > > > > > any related commits
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Regards
>> >> > > > > > Nabarun Nag
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>> >> > > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added
>> >> the
>> >> > 1.8
>> >> > > > > >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also
>> >> need
>> >> > to
>> >> > > > see
>> >> > > > > >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If
>> >> it's
>> >> > in
>> >> > > > use
>> >> > > > > >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
>> >> > branch
>> >> > > if
>> >> > > > > >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process
>> was
>> >> > > > > >> in-progress,
>> >> > > > > >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped
>> that
>> >> > > process
>> >> > > > > mid
>> >> > > > > >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
>> >> > > > > >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
>> >> > develop
>> >> > > > > pretty
>> >> > > > > >>> soon.
>> >> > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > >>> Regards
>> >> > > > > >>> Nabarun
>> >> > > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>> >> > > > > >> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>> >> > > > > >>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > >>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says
>> its
>> >> > > 1.8.0.
>> >> > > > > Is
>> >> > > > > >>>> that intentional?
>> >> > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
>> >> > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
>> >> > > > > >>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
>> >> (byte)0,
>> >> > > > > >>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
>> >> > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN
>> as
>> >> a
>> >> > > > > >>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
>> >> > concerns
>> >> > > > > >>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
>> >> > GEODE-5338.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>> Sai
>> >> > > > > >>>>> [1]
>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
>> >> > 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
>> >> > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
>> >> > > > > >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation
>> is
>> >> > good
>> >> > > > and
>> >> > > > > >>>> needed
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> more coverage.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
>> >> something
>> >> > > > about
>> >> > > > > >>>> JDK's
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> default implementation of
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
>> >> > needs a
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> rethought. It could result in
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
>> >> > validation.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
>> >> should
>> >> > do
>> >> > > > in a
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> different thread.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> Sai
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
>> >> > > > > >> amurmann@pivotal.io
>> >> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
>> discussion, I
>> >> see
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> following
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
>> merged
>> >> > PR.
>> >> > > > What
>> >> > > > > >> does
>> >> > > > > >>>> it
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> mean?
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's
>> >> PRs.
>> >> > Is
>> >> > > > > that
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> correct?
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
>> >> > > jdeppe@pivotal.io>
>> >> > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
>> >> > > gzhou@pivotal.io
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> +1
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
>> historical
>> >> > bugs
>> >> > > > > fixed.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
>> >> > > > build.gradle
>> >> > > > > >> and
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
>> >> refactoring
>> >> > is
>> >> > > > > also
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> success.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
>> >> > > > > abaker@pivotal.io>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Anthony
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
>> >> > dsmith@pivotal.io>
>> >> > > > > >> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
>> >> > (DistributedTest
>> >> > > > > OOMEs)
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> and
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
>> fixed
>> >> > > before
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>> cutting
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
>> create
>> >> a
>> >> > > > release
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> branch
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> from
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with
>> our
>> >> > > > > pipeline.
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
>> >> > > > > >>
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > --
>> >> > > > Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>> >> > > > Senior Technical Support Engineer
>> >> > > > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>> >> > > > Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> >> > > > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> >> > > > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>> >> > > > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
>> >> > > > How to upload artifacts:
>> >> > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>> >> > > > How to escalate a ticket:
>> >> > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
>> >> > > > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>> >> > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
>> >> > > > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
>> >> > > > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>> >> > > > <
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>> >> > Senior Technical Support Engineer
>> >> > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>> >> > Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> >> > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> >> > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
>> >> > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
>> >> > How to upload artifacts:
>> >> > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>> >> > How to escalate a ticket:
>> >> > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>> >> >
>> >> > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
>> >> > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>> >> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
>> >> > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
>> >> > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>> >> > <
>> >>
>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
Thank you Sai,
We are also waiting on documentation to be updated to reflect the changes
made by these resolved JIRAs.
Once that is completed, I believe that we will be ready for the new branch.
Regards
Nabarun Nag
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
>
> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
>
> Sai
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
> > the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
> > hostname
> > validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust
> store.
> >
> > So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> >
> > Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
> >
> > Sai
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> >>
> >> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> >> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> >> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> >> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338> has
> >> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> >>
> >> Does this look right?
> >>
> >> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR was
> >> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
> >> mentioned
> >> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given the
> >> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a update,
> >> maybe on the PR?
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks!!
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Juan,
> >> > >
> >> > > GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch
> >> has
> >> > not
> >> > > yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards
> >> > > Nabarun Nag
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jramos@pivotal.io
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hello team,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
> >> request
> >> > has
> >> > > > been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> >> > > > Best regards.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >> > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > great! thanks
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >> > > > > > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> undergo
> >> all
> >> > > > > > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
> as
> >> > well
> >> > > > as
> >> > > > > > any related commits
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Regards
> >> > > > > > Nabarun Nag
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >> > > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added
> >> the
> >> > 1.8
> >> > > > > >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also
> >> need
> >> > to
> >> > > > see
> >> > > > > >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If
> >> it's
> >> > in
> >> > > > use
> >> > > > > >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> >> > branch
> >> > > if
> >> > > > > >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >> > > > > >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process
> was
> >> > > > > >> in-progress,
> >> > > > > >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped
> that
> >> > > process
> >> > > > > mid
> >> > > > > >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> >> > > > > >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> >> > develop
> >> > > > > pretty
> >> > > > > >>> soon.
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> Regards
> >> > > > > >>> Nabarun
> >> > > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >> > > > > >> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> >> > > > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says
> its
> >> > > 1.8.0.
> >> > > > > Is
> >> > > > > >>>> that intentional?
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> >> > > > > >>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> >> (byte)0,
> >> > > > > >>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > >>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN
> as
> >> a
> >> > > > > >>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> >> > concerns
> >> > > > > >>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> >> > GEODE-5338.
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>> Sai
> >> > > > > >>>>> [1]
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> >> > 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> >> > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >> > > > > >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation
> is
> >> > good
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > >>>> needed
> >> > > > > >>>>>> more coverage.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
> >> something
> >> > > > about
> >> > > > > >>>> JDK's
> >> > > > > >>>>>> default implementation of
> >> > > > > >>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
> >> > needs a
> >> > > > > >>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> >> > > > > >>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> >> > validation.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
> >> should
> >> > do
> >> > > > in a
> >> > > > > >>>>>> different thread.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> Sai
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> >> > > > > >> amurmann@pivotal.io
> >> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion,
> I
> >> see
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> following
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
> merged
> >> > PR.
> >> > > > What
> >> > > > > >> does
> >> > > > > >>>> it
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> mean?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's
> >> PRs.
> >> > Is
> >> > > > > that
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> correct?
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> >> > > jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> >> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> >> > > gzhou@pivotal.io
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> +1
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
> historical
> >> > bugs
> >> > > > > fixed.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
> >> > > > build.gradle
> >> > > > > >> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> >> refactoring
> >> > is
> >> > > > > also
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> success.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> >> > > > > abaker@pivotal.io>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> >> > dsmith@pivotal.io>
> >> > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> >> > (DistributedTest
> >> > > > > OOMEs)
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> and
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
> fixed
> >> > > before
> >> > > > > >>>>>>> cutting
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
> create
> >> a
> >> > > > release
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>> branch
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> from
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with
> our
> >> > > > > pipeline.
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> >> > > > Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >> > > > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> >> > > > Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> > > > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> > > > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> > > > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> >> > > > How to upload artifacts:
> >> > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >> > > > How to escalate a ticket:
> >> > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >> > > >
> >> > > > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> >> > > > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >> > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> >> > > > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> >> > > > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >> > > > <
> >> > >
> >>
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> >> > Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >> > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> >> > Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> >> > How to upload artifacts:
> >> > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >> > How to escalate a ticket:
> >> > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >> >
> >> > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> >> > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> >> > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> >> > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >> > <
> >>
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>.
Why is it waiting at all in this case? Where is this 2 minute timeout
coming from?
-Dan
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> So the issue is that it takes longer to start than previous releases?
> Also, is this wait time only when using Gfsh to create gateway-receiver?
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:03 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Currently we have a minor issue in the release branch as pointed out by
> > Barry O.
> > We will wait till a resolution is figured out for this issue.
> >
> > Steps:
> > 1. create locator
> > 2. start server --name=server1 --server-port=40404
> > 3. start server --name=server2 --server-port=40405
> > 4. create gateway-receiver --member=server1
> > 5. create gateway-receiver --member=server2 `This gets stuck for 2
> minutes`
> >
> > Is the 2 minute wait time acceptable? Should we document it? When we
> revert
> > GEODE-5591, this issue does not happen.
> >
> > Regards
> > Nabarun Nag
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Status Update on release process for 1.7.0
> > > - checkPom files are being modified to have version as 1.7.0 instead of
> > > 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT
> > > - gradle.properties file has been modified to reflect 1.7.0 as the
> > version.
> > > - Version.java has been reverted to remove all changes corresponding to
> > > 1.8.0
> > > - CommandInitializer.java has been reverted to remove changes for 1.8.0
> > > - LuceneIndexCommandsJUnitTest.java has been modified to change
> > > Version.GEODE_180 to GEODE_170
> > > - LuceneIndexCommands.java has been modified to change
> Version.GEODE_180
> > > to GEODE_170
> > > -TXCommitMessage.java has been modified to change Version.GEODE_180 to
> > > GEODE_170
> > >
> > > I will be getting in touch with the individual developers to verify my
> > > changes.
> > > The branch will be update once we get a green light on these changes.
> > >
> > > Still need updates on these tickets:
> > >
> > > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
> > > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
> > > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
> > > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
> > >
> > > These tickets have commits into develop but they are still open with
> fix
> > > version as 1.8.0
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Nabarun Nag
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:38 PM Dale Emery <de...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I have resolved GEODE-5254
> > >>
> > >> Dale
> > >>
> > >> > On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Requesting status update on the following JIRA tickets. These
> tickets
> > >> have
> > >> > commits into develop against its name but the status is still open /
> > >> > unresolved.
> > >> >
> > >> > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
> > >> > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
> > >> > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
> > >> > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
> > >> > GEODE-5254 - [Dale Emery]
> > >> >
> > >> > GEODE-4794 - [Sai]
> > >> > GEODE-5594 - [Sai]
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards
> > >> > Nabarun Nag
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Please continue using 1.7.0 as a fix version in JIRA till the email
> > >> comes
> > >> >> in that the 1.7.0 release branch has be cut.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Changing the fixed version for the following tickets to 1.7.0 from
> > >> 1.8.0
> > >> >> as these fixes will be included in the 1.7.0 release
> > >> >>
> > >> >> GEODE-5671
> > >> >> GEODE-5662
> > >> >> GEODE-5660
> > >> >> GEODE-5652
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Regards
> > >> >> Nabarun Nag
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> A new feature of get/set cluster config was added as new feature
> to
> > >> gfsh.
> > >> >>> This needs to be added to the documentation.
> > >> >>> Once this is done, the branch will be ready.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Regards
> > >> >>> Nabarun
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:15 PM Alexander Murmann <
> > >> amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>> wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> Nabarun, do you still see anything blocking cutting the release
> at
> > >> this
> > >> >>>> point?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Maybe we can even get a pipeline going today? π³
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> > >> >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>> We can go ahead and cut 1.7 with out GEODE-5338 as I don't have
> > the
> > >> >>>> code
> > >> >>>>> ready.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> GEODE-5594, adds a new flag to enable hostname validation and is
> > >> >>>> disabled
> > >> >>>>> by default so we are good with changes that are already merged
> and
> > >> >>>>> documentation for GEODE-5594 is ready merged.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Naba, after the branch is cut we should delete windows jobs from
> > the
> > >> >>>> branch
> > >> >>>>> before we create the pipeline for 1.7.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Apologies for holding up the release.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Sai.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 10:23 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get closed before
> > >> >>>> cutting
> > >> >>>>> the
> > >> >>>>>> branch.
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> Regards
> > >> >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker <
> > abaker@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us
> > more
> > >> >>>> time
> > >> >>>>> to
> > >> >>>>>>> review and complete the work.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Thoughts?
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Anthony
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> > >> >>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing
> > >> >>>> behavior
> > >> >>>>>> and
> > >> >>>>>>>> is not acceptable.
> > >> >>>>>>>> Working on changing the implementation to have a default
> value
> > >> >>>>> derived
> > >> >>>>>>>> based on how user
> > >> >>>>>>>> wants to configure SSL.
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> Sai
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > >> >>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>> Sai
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > >> >>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related
> to
> > >> >>>>> trusting
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement
> > to
> > >> >>>> add
> > >> >>>>> a
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> hostname
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting
> > default
> > >> >>>>> trust
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> store.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on
> > >> >>>> GEODE-5338 PR.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > >> >>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this
> open
> > >> >>>> PR:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR:
> > >> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 <
> > >> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338>
> > >> >>>>>> has
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Does this look right?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right
> > now.
> > >> >>>> The
> > >> >>>>> PR
> > >> >>>>>>> was
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing
> > since.
> > >> >>>> Sai
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's
> > surprising
> > >> >>>>> given
> > >> >>>>>>> the
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give
> > us
> > >> >>>> a
> > >> >>>>>>> update,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> maybe on the PR?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> > >> >>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!!
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <
> > nnag@apache.org
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Juan,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The
> > new
> > >> >>>>>> branch
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> has
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> > >> >>>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello team,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?.
> The
> > >> >>>> pull
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> request
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great! thanks
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it
> will
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> undergo all
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted
> in
> > >> >>>> 1.7.0,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> well
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any related commits
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase.
> Someone
> > >> >>>> added
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that.
> > We
> > >> >>>> also
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> need
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for
> > >> >>>> backward-compatibility. If
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably
> undone
> > >> >>>> on the
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release
> > >> >>>> process
> > >> >>>>> was
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we
> > >> >>>> stopped
> > >> >>>>> that
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> process
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mid
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the
> > >> >>>> current
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> develop
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch
> that
> > >> >>>> says
> > >> >>>>> its
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8.0.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1,
> (byte)8,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating
> > >> >>>> against CN
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> as a
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any
> > >> >>>> further
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> concerns
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as
> expressed[1].
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following
> > with
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current
> > >> >>>> implementation
> > >> >>>>> is
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> good
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I
> > found
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> something
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about
> and
> > >> >>>> so it
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> needs a
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do
> > hostname
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on
> what
> > >> >>>> we
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> should
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander
> > Murmann <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
> > >> >>>> discussion,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> I see
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves
> > for
> > >> >>>> 1.7:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but
> has
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into
> 1.7?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to
> review
> > >> >>>> Sai's
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> PRs.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou
> <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
> > >> >>>>> historical
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> bugs
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with
> > >> >>>> latest
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.gradle
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So
> this
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> refactoring
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony
> Baker
> > <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> (DistributedTest
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OOMEs)
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts)
> to
> > >> >>>> be
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> fixed
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we
> > don't
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> create a
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic
> issues
> > >> >>>> with
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> our
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> >>>>>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> >>>>>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >> >>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >> >>>>>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 -
> > >> >>>> 16:00
> > >> >>>>> GMT
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> > >> >>>>> twitter]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
> > >> >>>> facebook]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image:
> > google
> > >> >>>>> plus]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> > >> >>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >> >>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 -
> > 16:00
> > >> >>>> GMT
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> > >> >>>> twitter]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
> > facebook]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image:
> google
> > >> >>>> plus]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> > >> >>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
[UPDATE]
Cherry-picking 156333bfc397c96963e7af598897066989ff0d4e GEODE-5695 to
release branch
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:45 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>So the issue is that it takes longer to start than previous releases?
> Yes
>
> >>>>Also, is this wait time only when using Gfsh to create
> gateway-receiver?
> No, even APIs
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:43 PM Anilkumar Gingade <ag...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
>> Its not gfsh specific. Its in the Gateway receiver start.
>>
>> It looks like the changes with GEODE-5591 still hit the earlier issue (it
>> was fixing) if the port is same as the port returned by
>> "getPortToStart()",
>> that was removed. I may be wrong.
>>
>> -Anil.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:39 PM Sai Boorlagadda <sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > So the issue is that it takes longer to start than previous releases?
>> > Also, is this wait time only when using Gfsh to create gateway-receiver?
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:03 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Currently we have a minor issue in the release branch as pointed out
>> by
>> > > Barry O.
>> > > We will wait till a resolution is figured out for this issue.
>> > >
>> > > Steps:
>> > > 1. create locator
>> > > 2. start server --name=server1 --server-port=40404
>> > > 3. start server --name=server2 --server-port=40405
>> > > 4. create gateway-receiver --member=server1
>> > > 5. create gateway-receiver --member=server2 `This gets stuck for 2
>> > minutes`
>> > >
>> > > Is the 2 minute wait time acceptable? Should we document it? When we
>> > revert
>> > > GEODE-5591, this issue does not happen.
>> > >
>> > > Regards
>> > > Nabarun Nag
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Status Update on release process for 1.7.0
>> > > > - checkPom files are being modified to have version as 1.7.0
>> instead of
>> > > > 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT
>> > > > - gradle.properties file has been modified to reflect 1.7.0 as the
>> > > version.
>> > > > - Version.java has been reverted to remove all changes
>> corresponding to
>> > > > 1.8.0
>> > > > - CommandInitializer.java has been reverted to remove changes for
>> 1.8.0
>> > > > - LuceneIndexCommandsJUnitTest.java has been modified to change
>> > > > Version.GEODE_180 to GEODE_170
>> > > > - LuceneIndexCommands.java has been modified to change
>> > Version.GEODE_180
>> > > > to GEODE_170
>> > > > -TXCommitMessage.java has been modified to change Version.GEODE_180
>> to
>> > > > GEODE_170
>> > > >
>> > > > I will be getting in touch with the individual developers to verify
>> my
>> > > > changes.
>> > > > The branch will be update once we get a green light on these
>> changes.
>> > > >
>> > > > Still need updates on these tickets:
>> > > >
>> > > > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
>> > > > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
>> > > > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
>> > > > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
>> > > >
>> > > > These tickets have commits into develop but they are still open with
>> > fix
>> > > > version as 1.8.0
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards
>> > > > Nabarun Nag
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:38 PM Dale Emery <de...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> I have resolved GEODE-5254
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Dale
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Requesting status update on the following JIRA tickets. These
>> > tickets
>> > > >> have
>> > > >> > commits into develop against its name but the status is still
>> open /
>> > > >> > unresolved.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
>> > > >> > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
>> > > >> > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
>> > > >> > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
>> > > >> > GEODE-5254 - [Dale Emery]
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > GEODE-4794 - [Sai]
>> > > >> > GEODE-5594 - [Sai]
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Regards
>> > > >> > Nabarun Nag
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Please continue using 1.7.0 as a fix version in JIRA till the
>> email
>> > > >> comes
>> > > >> >> in that the 1.7.0 release branch has be cut.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Changing the fixed version for the following tickets to 1.7.0
>> from
>> > > >> 1.8.0
>> > > >> >> as these fixes will be included in the 1.7.0 release
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> GEODE-5671
>> > > >> >> GEODE-5662
>> > > >> >> GEODE-5660
>> > > >> >> GEODE-5652
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Regards
>> > > >> >> Nabarun Nag
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>> A new feature of get/set cluster config was added as new
>> feature
>> > to
>> > > >> gfsh.
>> > > >> >>> This needs to be added to the documentation.
>> > > >> >>> Once this is done, the branch will be ready.
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> Regards
>> > > >> >>> Nabarun
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:15 PM Alexander Murmann <
>> > > >> amurmann@pivotal.io>
>> > > >> >>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>>> Nabarun, do you still see anything blocking cutting the
>> release
>> > at
>> > > >> this
>> > > >> >>>> point?
>> > > >> >>>>
>> > > >> >>>> Maybe we can even get a pipeline going today? π³
>> > > >> >>>>
>> > > >> >>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
>> > > >> >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
>> > > >> >>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>
>> > > >> >>>>> We can go ahead and cut 1.7 with out GEODE-5338 as I don't
>> have
>> > > the
>> > > >> >>>> code
>> > > >> >>>>> ready.
>> > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>> GEODE-5594, adds a new flag to enable hostname validation
>> and is
>> > > >> >>>> disabled
>> > > >> >>>>> by default so we are good with changes that are already
>> merged
>> > and
>> > > >> >>>>> documentation for GEODE-5594 is ready merged.
>> > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>> Naba, after the branch is cut we should delete windows jobs
>> from
>> > > the
>> > > >> >>>> branch
>> > > >> >>>>> before we create the pipeline for 1.7.
>> > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>> Apologies for holding up the release.
>> > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>> Sai.
>> > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 10:23 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>> I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get closed
>> before
>> > > >> >>>> cutting
>> > > >> >>>>> the
>> > > >> >>>>>> branch.
>> > > >> >>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>> Regards
>> > > >> >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>> > > >> >>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker <
>> > > abaker@pivotal.io>
>> > > >> >>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>> Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give
>> us
>> > > more
>> > > >> >>>> time
>> > > >> >>>>> to
>> > > >> >>>>>>> review and complete the work.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>> Thoughts?
>> > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>> Anthony
>> > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>> On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
>> > > >> >>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>> > > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>> I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the
>> existing
>> > > >> >>>> behavior
>> > > >> >>>>>> and
>> > > >> >>>>>>>> is not acceptable.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>> Working on changing the implementation to have a default
>> > value
>> > > >> >>>>> derived
>> > > >> >>>>>>>> based on how user
>> > > >> >>>>>>>> wants to configure SSL.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>> Sai
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
>> > > >> >>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> Sai
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns
>> related
>> > to
>> > > >> >>>>> trusting
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an
>> improvement
>> > > to
>> > > >> >>>> add
>> > > >> >>>>> a
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> hostname
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting
>> > > default
>> > > >> >>>>> trust
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> store.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on
>> > > >> >>>> GEODE-5338 PR.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Sai
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
>> > > >> >>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this
>> > open
>> > > >> >>>> PR:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR:
>> > > >> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 <
>> > > >> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338>
>> > > >> >>>>>> has
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Does this look right?
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me
>> right
>> > > now.
>> > > >> >>>> The
>> > > >> >>>>> PR
>> > > >> >>>>>>> was
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing
>> > > since.
>> > > >> >>>> Sai
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's
>> > > surprising
>> > > >> >>>>> given
>> > > >> >>>>>>> the
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to
>> give
>> > > us
>> > > >> >>>> a
>> > > >> >>>>>>> update,
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> maybe on the PR?
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
>> > > >> >>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
>> > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!!
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <
>> > > nnag@apache.org
>> > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Juan,
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop.
>> The
>> > > new
>> > > >> >>>>>> branch
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> has
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> not
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
>> > > >> >>>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello team,
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?.
>> > The
>> > > >> >>>> pull
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> request
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> has
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great! thanks
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it
>> > will
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> undergo all
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be
>> reverted
>> > in
>> > > >> >>>> 1.7.0,
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> as
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> well
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any related commits
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase.
>> > Someone
>> > > >> >>>> added
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert
>> that.
>> > > We
>> > > >> >>>> also
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> need
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for
>> > > >> >>>> backward-compatibility. If
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> it's
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably
>> > undone
>> > > >> >>>> on the
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0
>> release
>> > > >> >>>> process
>> > > >> >>>>> was
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we
>> > > >> >>>> stopped
>> > > >> >>>>> that
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mid
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with
>> the
>> > > >> >>>> current
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> develop
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce
>> Schuchardt <
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch
>> > that
>> > > >> >>>> says
>> > > >> >>>>> its
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8.0.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL
>> =95;
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1,
>> > (byte)8,
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating
>> > > >> >>>> against CN
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> as a
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have
>> any
>> > > >> >>>> further
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> concerns
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as
>> > expressed[1].
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and
>> following
>> > > with
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>
>> > > >>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai
>> Boorlagadda <
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current
>> > > >> >>>> implementation
>> > > >> >>>>> is
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> good
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I
>> > > found
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> something
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy
>> about
>> > and
>> > > >> >>>> so it
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> needs a
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do
>> > > hostname
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on
>> > what
>> > > >> >>>> we
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> should
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> do
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander
>> > > Murmann <
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
>> > > >> >>>> discussion,
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> I see
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as
>> want-to-haves
>> > > for
>> > > >> >>>> 1.7:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR
>> review
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR
>> review
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA
>> but
>> > has
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> merged
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into
>> > 1.7?
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to
>> > review
>> > > >> >>>> Sai's
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> PRs.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens
>> Deppe <
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian
>> Zhou
>> > <
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so
>> many
>> > > >> >>>>> historical
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> bugs
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run
>> with
>> > > >> >>>> latest
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.gradle
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So
>> > this
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> refactoring
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony
>> > Baker
>> > > <
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for
>> GEODE-5615
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> (DistributedTest
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OOMEs)
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port
>> conflicts)
>> > to
>> > > >> >>>> be
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> fixed
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we
>> > > don't
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> create a
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic
>> > issues
>> > > >> >>>> with
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> our
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> > > >> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> > > >> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> > > >> >>>>>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> > > >> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> > > >> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> > > >> >>>>>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>> > <(877)%20477-2269>
>> > > >> <(877)%20477-2269>
>> > > >> >>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>> > > >> >>>>>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri
>> 08:30 -
>> > > >> >>>> 16:00
>> > > >> >>>>> GMT
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/>
>> [image:
>> > > >> >>>>> twitter]
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
>> > > >> >>>> facebook]
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image:
>> > > google
>> > > >> >>>>> plus]
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
>> > > >> >>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> > > >> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> > > >> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> > > >> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> > > >> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
>> <(877)%20477-2269> <(877)%20477-2269>
>> > > >> <(877)%20477-2269>
>> > > >> >>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 -
>> > > 16:00
>> > > >> >>>> GMT
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/>
>> [image:
>> > > >> >>>> twitter]
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
>> > > facebook]
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image:
>> > google
>> > > >> >>>> plus]
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
>> > > >> >>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>>
>> > > >> >>>>
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
>>>>So the issue is that it takes longer to start than previous releases?
Yes
>>>>Also, is this wait time only when using Gfsh to create gateway-receiver?
No, even APIs
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:43 PM Anilkumar Gingade <ag...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> Its not gfsh specific. Its in the Gateway receiver start.
>
> It looks like the changes with GEODE-5591 still hit the earlier issue (it
> was fixing) if the port is same as the port returned by "getPortToStart()",
> that was removed. I may be wrong.
>
> -Anil.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:39 PM Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So the issue is that it takes longer to start than previous releases?
> > Also, is this wait time only when using Gfsh to create gateway-receiver?
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:03 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Currently we have a minor issue in the release branch as pointed out by
> > > Barry O.
> > > We will wait till a resolution is figured out for this issue.
> > >
> > > Steps:
> > > 1. create locator
> > > 2. start server --name=server1 --server-port=40404
> > > 3. start server --name=server2 --server-port=40405
> > > 4. create gateway-receiver --member=server1
> > > 5. create gateway-receiver --member=server2 `This gets stuck for 2
> > minutes`
> > >
> > > Is the 2 minute wait time acceptable? Should we document it? When we
> > revert
> > > GEODE-5591, this issue does not happen.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Nabarun Nag
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Status Update on release process for 1.7.0
> > > > - checkPom files are being modified to have version as 1.7.0 instead
> of
> > > > 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT
> > > > - gradle.properties file has been modified to reflect 1.7.0 as the
> > > version.
> > > > - Version.java has been reverted to remove all changes corresponding
> to
> > > > 1.8.0
> > > > - CommandInitializer.java has been reverted to remove changes for
> 1.8.0
> > > > - LuceneIndexCommandsJUnitTest.java has been modified to change
> > > > Version.GEODE_180 to GEODE_170
> > > > - LuceneIndexCommands.java has been modified to change
> > Version.GEODE_180
> > > > to GEODE_170
> > > > -TXCommitMessage.java has been modified to change Version.GEODE_180
> to
> > > > GEODE_170
> > > >
> > > > I will be getting in touch with the individual developers to verify
> my
> > > > changes.
> > > > The branch will be update once we get a green light on these changes.
> > > >
> > > > Still need updates on these tickets:
> > > >
> > > > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
> > > > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
> > > > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
> > > > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
> > > >
> > > > These tickets have commits into develop but they are still open with
> > fix
> > > > version as 1.8.0
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:38 PM Dale Emery <de...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I have resolved GEODE-5254
> > > >>
> > > >> Dale
> > > >>
> > > >> > On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Requesting status update on the following JIRA tickets. These
> > tickets
> > > >> have
> > > >> > commits into develop against its name but the status is still
> open /
> > > >> > unresolved.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
> > > >> > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
> > > >> > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
> > > >> > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
> > > >> > GEODE-5254 - [Dale Emery]
> > > >> >
> > > >> > GEODE-4794 - [Sai]
> > > >> > GEODE-5594 - [Sai]
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Regards
> > > >> > Nabarun Nag
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Please continue using 1.7.0 as a fix version in JIRA till the
> email
> > > >> comes
> > > >> >> in that the 1.7.0 release branch has be cut.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Changing the fixed version for the following tickets to 1.7.0
> from
> > > >> 1.8.0
> > > >> >> as these fixes will be included in the 1.7.0 release
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> GEODE-5671
> > > >> >> GEODE-5662
> > > >> >> GEODE-5660
> > > >> >> GEODE-5652
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Regards
> > > >> >> Nabarun Nag
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>> A new feature of get/set cluster config was added as new feature
> > to
> > > >> gfsh.
> > > >> >>> This needs to be added to the documentation.
> > > >> >>> Once this is done, the branch will be ready.
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> Regards
> > > >> >>> Nabarun
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:15 PM Alexander Murmann <
> > > >> amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>>> Nabarun, do you still see anything blocking cutting the release
> > at
> > > >> this
> > > >> >>>> point?
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> Maybe we can even get a pipeline going today? π³
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > >> >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> > > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>>> We can go ahead and cut 1.7 with out GEODE-5338 as I don't
> have
> > > the
> > > >> >>>> code
> > > >> >>>>> ready.
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> GEODE-5594, adds a new flag to enable hostname validation and
> is
> > > >> >>>> disabled
> > > >> >>>>> by default so we are good with changes that are already merged
> > and
> > > >> >>>>> documentation for GEODE-5594 is ready merged.
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> Naba, after the branch is cut we should delete windows jobs
> from
> > > the
> > > >> >>>> branch
> > > >> >>>>> before we create the pipeline for 1.7.
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> Apologies for holding up the release.
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> Sai.
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 10:23 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>> I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get closed
> before
> > > >> >>>> cutting
> > > >> >>>>> the
> > > >> >>>>>> branch.
> > > >> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>> Regards
> > > >> >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > > >> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker <
> > > abaker@pivotal.io>
> > > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>> Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us
> > > more
> > > >> >>>> time
> > > >> >>>>> to
> > > >> >>>>>>> review and complete the work.
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>> Thoughts?
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>> Anthony
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>> On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > >> >>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>> I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the
> existing
> > > >> >>>> behavior
> > > >> >>>>>> and
> > > >> >>>>>>>> is not acceptable.
> > > >> >>>>>>>> Working on changing the implementation to have a default
> > value
> > > >> >>>>> derived
> > > >> >>>>>>>> based on how user
> > > >> >>>>>>>> wants to configure SSL.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>> Sai
> > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > >> >>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> Sai
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related
> > to
> > > >> >>>>> trusting
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an
> improvement
> > > to
> > > >> >>>> add
> > > >> >>>>> a
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> hostname
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting
> > > default
> > > >> >>>>> trust
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> store.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on
> > > >> >>>> GEODE-5338 PR.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > >> >>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this
> > open
> > > >> >>>> PR:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR:
> > > >> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 <
> > > >> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338>
> > > >> >>>>>> has
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Does this look right?
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right
> > > now.
> > > >> >>>> The
> > > >> >>>>> PR
> > > >> >>>>>>> was
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing
> > > since.
> > > >> >>>> Sai
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's
> > > surprising
> > > >> >>>>> given
> > > >> >>>>>>> the
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to
> give
> > > us
> > > >> >>>> a
> > > >> >>>>>>> update,
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> maybe on the PR?
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> > > >> >>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!!
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <
> > > nnag@apache.org
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Juan,
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop.
> The
> > > new
> > > >> >>>>>> branch
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> > > >> >>>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
> > > >> >>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello team,
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?.
> > The
> > > >> >>>> pull
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> request
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great! thanks
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it
> > will
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> undergo all
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted
> > in
> > > >> >>>> 1.7.0,
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> well
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any related commits
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase.
> > Someone
> > > >> >>>> added
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert
> that.
> > > We
> > > >> >>>> also
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> need
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for
> > > >> >>>> backward-compatibility. If
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably
> > undone
> > > >> >>>> on the
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release
> > > >> >>>> process
> > > >> >>>>> was
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we
> > > >> >>>> stopped
> > > >> >>>>> that
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> process
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mid
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with
> the
> > > >> >>>> current
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> develop
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce
> Schuchardt <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch
> > that
> > > >> >>>> says
> > > >> >>>>> its
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8.0.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1,
> > (byte)8,
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating
> > > >> >>>> against CN
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> as a
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any
> > > >> >>>> further
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> concerns
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as
> > expressed[1].
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and
> following
> > > with
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>
> > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai
> Boorlagadda <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current
> > > >> >>>> implementation
> > > >> >>>>> is
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> good
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I
> > > found
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> something
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about
> > and
> > > >> >>>> so it
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> needs a
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do
> > > hostname
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on
> > what
> > > >> >>>> we
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> should
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander
> > > Murmann <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
> > > >> >>>> discussion,
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> I see
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as
> want-to-haves
> > > for
> > > >> >>>> 1.7:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR
> review
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR
> review
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but
> > has
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into
> > 1.7?
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to
> > review
> > > >> >>>> Sai's
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> PRs.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe
> <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian
> Zhou
> > <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so
> many
> > > >> >>>>> historical
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> bugs
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run
> with
> > > >> >>>> latest
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.gradle
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So
> > this
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> refactoring
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony
> > Baker
> > > <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> (DistributedTest
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OOMEs)
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port
> conflicts)
> > to
> > > >> >>>> be
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> fixed
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we
> > > don't
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> create a
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic
> > issues
> > > >> >>>> with
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> our
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > >> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > >> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > >> >>>>>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > >> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > >> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > >> >>>>>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > >> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > >> >>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > >> >>>>>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30
> -
> > > >> >>>> 16:00
> > > >> >>>>> GMT
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/>
> [image:
> > > >> >>>>> twitter]
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
> > > >> >>>> facebook]
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image:
> > > google
> > > >> >>>>> plus]
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> > > >> >>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > >> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > >> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > >> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > >> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
> <(877)%20477-2269> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > >> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > >> >>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 -
> > > 16:00
> > > >> >>>> GMT
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> > > >> >>>> twitter]
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
> > > facebook]
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image:
> > google
> > > >> >>>> plus]
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> > > >> >>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>>
> > > >> >>>>>
> > > >> >>>>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Anilkumar Gingade <ag...@pivotal.io>.
Its not gfsh specific. Its in the Gateway receiver start.
It looks like the changes with GEODE-5591 still hit the earlier issue (it
was fixing) if the port is same as the port returned by "getPortToStart()",
that was removed. I may be wrong.
-Anil.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:39 PM Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> So the issue is that it takes longer to start than previous releases?
> Also, is this wait time only when using Gfsh to create gateway-receiver?
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:03 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Currently we have a minor issue in the release branch as pointed out by
> > Barry O.
> > We will wait till a resolution is figured out for this issue.
> >
> > Steps:
> > 1. create locator
> > 2. start server --name=server1 --server-port=40404
> > 3. start server --name=server2 --server-port=40405
> > 4. create gateway-receiver --member=server1
> > 5. create gateway-receiver --member=server2 `This gets stuck for 2
> minutes`
> >
> > Is the 2 minute wait time acceptable? Should we document it? When we
> revert
> > GEODE-5591, this issue does not happen.
> >
> > Regards
> > Nabarun Nag
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Status Update on release process for 1.7.0
> > > - checkPom files are being modified to have version as 1.7.0 instead of
> > > 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT
> > > - gradle.properties file has been modified to reflect 1.7.0 as the
> > version.
> > > - Version.java has been reverted to remove all changes corresponding to
> > > 1.8.0
> > > - CommandInitializer.java has been reverted to remove changes for 1.8.0
> > > - LuceneIndexCommandsJUnitTest.java has been modified to change
> > > Version.GEODE_180 to GEODE_170
> > > - LuceneIndexCommands.java has been modified to change
> Version.GEODE_180
> > > to GEODE_170
> > > -TXCommitMessage.java has been modified to change Version.GEODE_180 to
> > > GEODE_170
> > >
> > > I will be getting in touch with the individual developers to verify my
> > > changes.
> > > The branch will be update once we get a green light on these changes.
> > >
> > > Still need updates on these tickets:
> > >
> > > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
> > > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
> > > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
> > > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
> > >
> > > These tickets have commits into develop but they are still open with
> fix
> > > version as 1.8.0
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Nabarun Nag
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:38 PM Dale Emery <de...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I have resolved GEODE-5254
> > >>
> > >> Dale
> > >>
> > >> > On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Requesting status update on the following JIRA tickets. These
> tickets
> > >> have
> > >> > commits into develop against its name but the status is still open /
> > >> > unresolved.
> > >> >
> > >> > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
> > >> > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
> > >> > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
> > >> > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
> > >> > GEODE-5254 - [Dale Emery]
> > >> >
> > >> > GEODE-4794 - [Sai]
> > >> > GEODE-5594 - [Sai]
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards
> > >> > Nabarun Nag
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Please continue using 1.7.0 as a fix version in JIRA till the email
> > >> comes
> > >> >> in that the 1.7.0 release branch has be cut.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Changing the fixed version for the following tickets to 1.7.0 from
> > >> 1.8.0
> > >> >> as these fixes will be included in the 1.7.0 release
> > >> >>
> > >> >> GEODE-5671
> > >> >> GEODE-5662
> > >> >> GEODE-5660
> > >> >> GEODE-5652
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Regards
> > >> >> Nabarun Nag
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> A new feature of get/set cluster config was added as new feature
> to
> > >> gfsh.
> > >> >>> This needs to be added to the documentation.
> > >> >>> Once this is done, the branch will be ready.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Regards
> > >> >>> Nabarun
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:15 PM Alexander Murmann <
> > >> amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>> wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> Nabarun, do you still see anything blocking cutting the release
> at
> > >> this
> > >> >>>> point?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Maybe we can even get a pipeline going today? π³
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> > >> >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>> We can go ahead and cut 1.7 with out GEODE-5338 as I don't have
> > the
> > >> >>>> code
> > >> >>>>> ready.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> GEODE-5594, adds a new flag to enable hostname validation and is
> > >> >>>> disabled
> > >> >>>>> by default so we are good with changes that are already merged
> and
> > >> >>>>> documentation for GEODE-5594 is ready merged.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Naba, after the branch is cut we should delete windows jobs from
> > the
> > >> >>>> branch
> > >> >>>>> before we create the pipeline for 1.7.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Apologies for holding up the release.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Sai.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 10:23 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get closed before
> > >> >>>> cutting
> > >> >>>>> the
> > >> >>>>>> branch.
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> Regards
> > >> >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker <
> > abaker@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us
> > more
> > >> >>>> time
> > >> >>>>> to
> > >> >>>>>>> review and complete the work.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Thoughts?
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> Anthony
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> > >> >>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing
> > >> >>>> behavior
> > >> >>>>>> and
> > >> >>>>>>>> is not acceptable.
> > >> >>>>>>>> Working on changing the implementation to have a default
> value
> > >> >>>>> derived
> > >> >>>>>>>> based on how user
> > >> >>>>>>>> wants to configure SSL.
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> Sai
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > >> >>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>> Sai
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > >> >>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related
> to
> > >> >>>>> trusting
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement
> > to
> > >> >>>> add
> > >> >>>>> a
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> hostname
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting
> > default
> > >> >>>>> trust
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> store.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on
> > >> >>>> GEODE-5338 PR.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > >> >>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this
> open
> > >> >>>> PR:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR:
> > >> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 <
> > >> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338>
> > >> >>>>>> has
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Does this look right?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right
> > now.
> > >> >>>> The
> > >> >>>>> PR
> > >> >>>>>>> was
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing
> > since.
> > >> >>>> Sai
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's
> > surprising
> > >> >>>>> given
> > >> >>>>>>> the
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give
> > us
> > >> >>>> a
> > >> >>>>>>> update,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> maybe on the PR?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> > >> >>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!!
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <
> > nnag@apache.org
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Juan,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The
> > new
> > >> >>>>>> branch
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> has
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> > >> >>>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
> > >> >>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello team,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?.
> The
> > >> >>>> pull
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> request
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> has
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great! thanks
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it
> will
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> undergo all
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted
> in
> > >> >>>> 1.7.0,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> as
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> well
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any related commits
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase.
> Someone
> > >> >>>> added
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that.
> > We
> > >> >>>> also
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> need
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for
> > >> >>>> backward-compatibility. If
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably
> undone
> > >> >>>> on the
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release
> > >> >>>> process
> > >> >>>>> was
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we
> > >> >>>> stopped
> > >> >>>>> that
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> process
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mid
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the
> > >> >>>> current
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> develop
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch
> that
> > >> >>>> says
> > >> >>>>> its
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8.0.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1,
> (byte)8,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating
> > >> >>>> against CN
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> as a
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any
> > >> >>>> further
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> concerns
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as
> expressed[1].
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following
> > with
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current
> > >> >>>> implementation
> > >> >>>>> is
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> good
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I
> > found
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> something
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about
> and
> > >> >>>> so it
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> needs a
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do
> > hostname
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on
> what
> > >> >>>> we
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> should
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> do
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander
> > Murmann <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
> > >> >>>> discussion,
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> I see
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves
> > for
> > >> >>>> 1.7:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but
> has
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into
> 1.7?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to
> review
> > >> >>>> Sai's
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> PRs.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou
> <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
> > >> >>>>> historical
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> bugs
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with
> > >> >>>> latest
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.gradle
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So
> this
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> refactoring
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony
> Baker
> > <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> (DistributedTest
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OOMEs)
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts)
> to
> > >> >>>> be
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> fixed
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we
> > don't
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> create a
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic
> issues
> > >> >>>> with
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> our
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> >>>>>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> >>>>>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >> >>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >> >>>>>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 -
> > >> >>>> 16:00
> > >> >>>>> GMT
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> > >> >>>>> twitter]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
> > >> >>>> facebook]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image:
> > google
> > >> >>>>> plus]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> > >> >>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >> >>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 -
> > 16:00
> > >> >>>> GMT
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> > >> >>>> twitter]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
> > facebook]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image:
> google
> > >> >>>> plus]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> > >> >>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>.
So the issue is that it takes longer to start than previous releases?
Also, is this wait time only when using Gfsh to create gateway-receiver?
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:03 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> Currently we have a minor issue in the release branch as pointed out by
> Barry O.
> We will wait till a resolution is figured out for this issue.
>
> Steps:
> 1. create locator
> 2. start server --name=server1 --server-port=40404
> 3. start server --name=server2 --server-port=40405
> 4. create gateway-receiver --member=server1
> 5. create gateway-receiver --member=server2 `This gets stuck for 2 minutes`
>
> Is the 2 minute wait time acceptable? Should we document it? When we revert
> GEODE-5591, this issue does not happen.
>
> Regards
> Nabarun Nag
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Status Update on release process for 1.7.0
> > - checkPom files are being modified to have version as 1.7.0 instead of
> > 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT
> > - gradle.properties file has been modified to reflect 1.7.0 as the
> version.
> > - Version.java has been reverted to remove all changes corresponding to
> > 1.8.0
> > - CommandInitializer.java has been reverted to remove changes for 1.8.0
> > - LuceneIndexCommandsJUnitTest.java has been modified to change
> > Version.GEODE_180 to GEODE_170
> > - LuceneIndexCommands.java has been modified to change Version.GEODE_180
> > to GEODE_170
> > -TXCommitMessage.java has been modified to change Version.GEODE_180 to
> > GEODE_170
> >
> > I will be getting in touch with the individual developers to verify my
> > changes.
> > The branch will be update once we get a green light on these changes.
> >
> > Still need updates on these tickets:
> >
> > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
> > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
> > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
> > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
> >
> > These tickets have commits into develop but they are still open with fix
> > version as 1.8.0
> >
> > Regards
> > Nabarun Nag
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:38 PM Dale Emery <de...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> >> I have resolved GEODE-5254
> >>
> >> Dale
> >>
> >> > On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Requesting status update on the following JIRA tickets. These tickets
> >> have
> >> > commits into develop against its name but the status is still open /
> >> > unresolved.
> >> >
> >> > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
> >> > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
> >> > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
> >> > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
> >> > GEODE-5254 - [Dale Emery]
> >> >
> >> > GEODE-4794 - [Sai]
> >> > GEODE-5594 - [Sai]
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> > Nabarun Nag
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Please continue using 1.7.0 as a fix version in JIRA till the email
> >> comes
> >> >> in that the 1.7.0 release branch has be cut.
> >> >>
> >> >> Changing the fixed version for the following tickets to 1.7.0 from
> >> 1.8.0
> >> >> as these fixes will be included in the 1.7.0 release
> >> >>
> >> >> GEODE-5671
> >> >> GEODE-5662
> >> >> GEODE-5660
> >> >> GEODE-5652
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards
> >> >> Nabarun Nag
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> A new feature of get/set cluster config was added as new feature to
> >> gfsh.
> >> >>> This needs to be added to the documentation.
> >> >>> Once this is done, the branch will be ready.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Regards
> >> >>> Nabarun
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:15 PM Alexander Murmann <
> >> amurmann@pivotal.io>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Nabarun, do you still see anything blocking cutting the release at
> >> this
> >> >>>> point?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Maybe we can even get a pipeline going today? π³
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> >> >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> We can go ahead and cut 1.7 with out GEODE-5338 as I don't have
> the
> >> >>>> code
> >> >>>>> ready.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> GEODE-5594, adds a new flag to enable hostname validation and is
> >> >>>> disabled
> >> >>>>> by default so we are good with changes that are already merged and
> >> >>>>> documentation for GEODE-5594 is ready merged.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Naba, after the branch is cut we should delete windows jobs from
> the
> >> >>>> branch
> >> >>>>> before we create the pipeline for 1.7.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Apologies for holding up the release.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Sai.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 10:23 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get closed before
> >> >>>> cutting
> >> >>>>> the
> >> >>>>>> branch.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Regards
> >> >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker <
> abaker@pivotal.io>
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us
> more
> >> >>>> time
> >> >>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>> review and complete the work.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Thoughts?
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Anthony
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> >> >>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing
> >> >>>> behavior
> >> >>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>> is not acceptable.
> >> >>>>>>>> Working on changing the implementation to have a default value
> >> >>>>> derived
> >> >>>>>>>> based on how user
> >> >>>>>>>> wants to configure SSL.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Sai
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >> >>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Sai
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >> >>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to
> >> >>>>> trusting
> >> >>>>>>>>>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement
> to
> >> >>>> add
> >> >>>>> a
> >> >>>>>>>>>> hostname
> >> >>>>>>>>>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting
> default
> >> >>>>> trust
> >> >>>>>>>>>> store.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on
> >> >>>> GEODE-5338 PR.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Sai
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> >> >>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open
> >> >>>> PR:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR:
> >> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 <
> >> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338>
> >> >>>>>> has
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Does this look right?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right
> now.
> >> >>>> The
> >> >>>>> PR
> >> >>>>>>> was
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing
> since.
> >> >>>> Sai
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's
> surprising
> >> >>>>> given
> >> >>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give
> us
> >> >>>> a
> >> >>>>>>> update,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> maybe on the PR?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> >> >>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!!
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <
> nnag@apache.org
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Juan,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The
> new
> >> >>>>>> branch
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> has
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> >> >>>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello team,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The
> >> >>>> pull
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> request
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great! thanks
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> undergo all
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in
> >> >>>> 1.7.0,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> as
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> well
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any related commits
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone
> >> >>>> added
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that.
> We
> >> >>>> also
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> need
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for
> >> >>>> backward-compatibility. If
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone
> >> >>>> on the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release
> >> >>>> process
> >> >>>>> was
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we
> >> >>>> stopped
> >> >>>>> that
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> process
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mid
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the
> >> >>>> current
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> develop
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that
> >> >>>> says
> >> >>>>> its
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8.0.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating
> >> >>>> against CN
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> as a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any
> >> >>>> further
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> concerns
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following
> with
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current
> >> >>>> implementation
> >> >>>>> is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> good
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I
> found
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> something
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and
> >> >>>> so it
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> needs a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do
> hostname
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what
> >> >>>> we
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> should
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> do
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander
> Murmann <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
> >> >>>> discussion,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> I see
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves
> for
> >> >>>> 1.7:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review
> >> >>>> Sai's
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> PRs.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
> >> >>>>> historical
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> bugs
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with
> >> >>>> latest
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.gradle
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> refactoring
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker
> <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> (DistributedTest
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OOMEs)
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to
> >> >>>> be
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> fixed
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we
> don't
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> create a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues
> >> >>>> with
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> our
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> >>>>>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> >>>>>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> >>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> >>>>>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 -
> >> >>>> 16:00
> >> >>>>> GMT
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> >> >>>>> twitter]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
> >> >>>> facebook]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image:
> google
> >> >>>>> plus]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> >> >>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> >>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 -
> 16:00
> >> >>>> GMT
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> >> >>>> twitter]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
> facebook]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
> >> >>>> plus]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> >> >>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Sean Goller <sg...@pivotal.io>.
Reverting GEODE-5591 results in code that can produce an infinite loop, so
I don't feel that's a viable option. I feel as though the code treats bind
exceptions as transient occurrences, but my direct experience with them
leads me to the opposite conclusion. I don't believe a long wait time is
going to change the situation, especially since a TCP timeout scenario can
take up to 30 minutes to resolve itself. I believe it is better to fail
fast and hard, so I would suggest either failing immediately or a very
short timeout, say 5 or 10 seconds at most.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:03 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> Currently we have a minor issue in the release branch as pointed out by
> Barry O.
> We will wait till a resolution is figured out for this issue.
>
> Steps:
> 1. create locator
> 2. start server --name=server1 --server-port=40404
> 3. start server --name=server2 --server-port=40405
> 4. create gateway-receiver --member=server1
> 5. create gateway-receiver --member=server2 `This gets stuck for 2 minutes`
>
> Is the 2 minute wait time acceptable? Should we document it? When we revert
> GEODE-5591, this issue does not happen.
>
> Regards
> Nabarun Nag
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Status Update on release process for 1.7.0
> > - checkPom files are being modified to have version as 1.7.0 instead of
> > 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT
> > - gradle.properties file has been modified to reflect 1.7.0 as the
> version.
> > - Version.java has been reverted to remove all changes corresponding to
> > 1.8.0
> > - CommandInitializer.java has been reverted to remove changes for 1.8.0
> > - LuceneIndexCommandsJUnitTest.java has been modified to change
> > Version.GEODE_180 to GEODE_170
> > - LuceneIndexCommands.java has been modified to change Version.GEODE_180
> > to GEODE_170
> > -TXCommitMessage.java has been modified to change Version.GEODE_180 to
> > GEODE_170
> >
> > I will be getting in touch with the individual developers to verify my
> > changes.
> > The branch will be update once we get a green light on these changes.
> >
> > Still need updates on these tickets:
> >
> > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
> > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
> > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
> > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
> >
> > These tickets have commits into develop but they are still open with fix
> > version as 1.8.0
> >
> > Regards
> > Nabarun Nag
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:38 PM Dale Emery <de...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> >> I have resolved GEODE-5254
> >>
> >> Dale
> >>
> >> > On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Requesting status update on the following JIRA tickets. These tickets
> >> have
> >> > commits into develop against its name but the status is still open /
> >> > unresolved.
> >> >
> >> > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
> >> > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
> >> > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
> >> > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
> >> > GEODE-5254 - [Dale Emery]
> >> >
> >> > GEODE-4794 - [Sai]
> >> > GEODE-5594 - [Sai]
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> > Nabarun Nag
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Please continue using 1.7.0 as a fix version in JIRA till the email
> >> comes
> >> >> in that the 1.7.0 release branch has be cut.
> >> >>
> >> >> Changing the fixed version for the following tickets to 1.7.0 from
> >> 1.8.0
> >> >> as these fixes will be included in the 1.7.0 release
> >> >>
> >> >> GEODE-5671
> >> >> GEODE-5662
> >> >> GEODE-5660
> >> >> GEODE-5652
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards
> >> >> Nabarun Nag
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> A new feature of get/set cluster config was added as new feature to
> >> gfsh.
> >> >>> This needs to be added to the documentation.
> >> >>> Once this is done, the branch will be ready.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Regards
> >> >>> Nabarun
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:15 PM Alexander Murmann <
> >> amurmann@pivotal.io>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Nabarun, do you still see anything blocking cutting the release at
> >> this
> >> >>>> point?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Maybe we can even get a pipeline going today? π³
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> >> >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> We can go ahead and cut 1.7 with out GEODE-5338 as I don't have
> the
> >> >>>> code
> >> >>>>> ready.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> GEODE-5594, adds a new flag to enable hostname validation and is
> >> >>>> disabled
> >> >>>>> by default so we are good with changes that are already merged and
> >> >>>>> documentation for GEODE-5594 is ready merged.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Naba, after the branch is cut we should delete windows jobs from
> the
> >> >>>> branch
> >> >>>>> before we create the pipeline for 1.7.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Apologies for holding up the release.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Sai.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 10:23 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get closed before
> >> >>>> cutting
> >> >>>>> the
> >> >>>>>> branch.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Regards
> >> >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker <
> abaker@pivotal.io>
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us
> more
> >> >>>> time
> >> >>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>> review and complete the work.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Thoughts?
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Anthony
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> >> >>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing
> >> >>>> behavior
> >> >>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>> is not acceptable.
> >> >>>>>>>> Working on changing the implementation to have a default value
> >> >>>>> derived
> >> >>>>>>>> based on how user
> >> >>>>>>>> wants to configure SSL.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Sai
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >> >>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Sai
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >> >>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to
> >> >>>>> trusting
> >> >>>>>>>>>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement
> to
> >> >>>> add
> >> >>>>> a
> >> >>>>>>>>>> hostname
> >> >>>>>>>>>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting
> default
> >> >>>>> trust
> >> >>>>>>>>>> store.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on
> >> >>>> GEODE-5338 PR.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Sai
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> >> >>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open
> >> >>>> PR:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR:
> >> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 <
> >> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338>
> >> >>>>>> has
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Does this look right?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right
> now.
> >> >>>> The
> >> >>>>> PR
> >> >>>>>>> was
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing
> since.
> >> >>>> Sai
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's
> surprising
> >> >>>>> given
> >> >>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give
> us
> >> >>>> a
> >> >>>>>>> update,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> maybe on the PR?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> >> >>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!!
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <
> nnag@apache.org
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Juan,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The
> new
> >> >>>>>> branch
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> has
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> >> >>>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello team,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The
> >> >>>> pull
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> request
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great! thanks
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> undergo all
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in
> >> >>>> 1.7.0,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> as
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> well
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any related commits
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone
> >> >>>> added
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that.
> We
> >> >>>> also
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> need
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for
> >> >>>> backward-compatibility. If
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone
> >> >>>> on the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release
> >> >>>> process
> >> >>>>> was
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we
> >> >>>> stopped
> >> >>>>> that
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> process
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mid
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the
> >> >>>> current
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> develop
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that
> >> >>>> says
> >> >>>>> its
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8.0.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating
> >> >>>> against CN
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> as a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any
> >> >>>> further
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> concerns
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following
> with
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current
> >> >>>> implementation
> >> >>>>> is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> good
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I
> found
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> something
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and
> >> >>>> so it
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> needs a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do
> hostname
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what
> >> >>>> we
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> should
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> do
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander
> Murmann <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
> >> >>>> discussion,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> I see
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves
> for
> >> >>>> 1.7:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review
> >> >>>> Sai's
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> PRs.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
> >> >>>>> historical
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> bugs
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with
> >> >>>> latest
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.gradle
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> refactoring
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker
> <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> (DistributedTest
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OOMEs)
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to
> >> >>>> be
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> fixed
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we
> don't
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> create a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues
> >> >>>> with
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> our
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> >>>>>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> >>>>>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> >>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> >>>>>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 -
> >> >>>> 16:00
> >> >>>>> GMT
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> >> >>>>> twitter]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
> >> >>>> facebook]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image:
> google
> >> >>>>> plus]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> >> >>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> >>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 -
> 16:00
> >> >>>> GMT
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> >> >>>> twitter]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
> facebook]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
> >> >>>> plus]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> >> >>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
Currently we have a minor issue in the release branch as pointed out by
Barry O.
We will wait till a resolution is figured out for this issue.
Steps:
1. create locator
2. start server --name=server1 --server-port=40404
3. start server --name=server2 --server-port=40405
4. create gateway-receiver --member=server1
5. create gateway-receiver --member=server2 `This gets stuck for 2 minutes`
Is the 2 minute wait time acceptable? Should we document it? When we revert
GEODE-5591, this issue does not happen.
Regards
Nabarun Nag
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> Status Update on release process for 1.7.0
> - checkPom files are being modified to have version as 1.7.0 instead of
> 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT
> - gradle.properties file has been modified to reflect 1.7.0 as the version.
> - Version.java has been reverted to remove all changes corresponding to
> 1.8.0
> - CommandInitializer.java has been reverted to remove changes for 1.8.0
> - LuceneIndexCommandsJUnitTest.java has been modified to change
> Version.GEODE_180 to GEODE_170
> - LuceneIndexCommands.java has been modified to change Version.GEODE_180
> to GEODE_170
> -TXCommitMessage.java has been modified to change Version.GEODE_180 to
> GEODE_170
>
> I will be getting in touch with the individual developers to verify my
> changes.
> The branch will be update once we get a green light on these changes.
>
> Still need updates on these tickets:
>
> GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
> GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
> GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
> GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
>
> These tickets have commits into develop but they are still open with fix
> version as 1.8.0
>
> Regards
> Nabarun Nag
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:38 PM Dale Emery <de...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
>> I have resolved GEODE-5254
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> > On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> >
>> > Requesting status update on the following JIRA tickets. These tickets
>> have
>> > commits into develop against its name but the status is still open /
>> > unresolved.
>> >
>> > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
>> > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
>> > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
>> > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
>> > GEODE-5254 - [Dale Emery]
>> >
>> > GEODE-4794 - [Sai]
>> > GEODE-5594 - [Sai]
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Nabarun Nag
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Please continue using 1.7.0 as a fix version in JIRA till the email
>> comes
>> >> in that the 1.7.0 release branch has be cut.
>> >>
>> >> Changing the fixed version for the following tickets to 1.7.0 from
>> 1.8.0
>> >> as these fixes will be included in the 1.7.0 release
>> >>
>> >> GEODE-5671
>> >> GEODE-5662
>> >> GEODE-5660
>> >> GEODE-5652
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> Nabarun Nag
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> A new feature of get/set cluster config was added as new feature to
>> gfsh.
>> >>> This needs to be added to the documentation.
>> >>> Once this is done, the branch will be ready.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards
>> >>> Nabarun
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:15 PM Alexander Murmann <
>> amurmann@pivotal.io>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Nabarun, do you still see anything blocking cutting the release at
>> this
>> >>>> point?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Maybe we can even get a pipeline going today? π³
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
>> >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> We can go ahead and cut 1.7 with out GEODE-5338 as I don't have the
>> >>>> code
>> >>>>> ready.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> GEODE-5594, adds a new flag to enable hostname validation and is
>> >>>> disabled
>> >>>>> by default so we are good with changes that are already merged and
>> >>>>> documentation for GEODE-5594 is ready merged.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Naba, after the branch is cut we should delete windows jobs from the
>> >>>> branch
>> >>>>> before we create the pipeline for 1.7.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Apologies for holding up the release.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sai.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 10:23 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get closed before
>> >>>> cutting
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>>> branch.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Regards
>> >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us more
>> >>>> time
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>>>> review and complete the work.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Thoughts?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Anthony
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
>> >>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing
>> >>>> behavior
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>> is not acceptable.
>> >>>>>>>> Working on changing the implementation to have a default value
>> >>>>> derived
>> >>>>>>>> based on how user
>> >>>>>>>> wants to configure SSL.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Sai
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
>> >>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Sai
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
>> >>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to
>> >>>>> trusting
>> >>>>>>>>>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to
>> >>>> add
>> >>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>> hostname
>> >>>>>>>>>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default
>> >>>>> trust
>> >>>>>>>>>> store.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on
>> >>>> GEODE-5338 PR.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Sai
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
>> >>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io>
>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open
>> >>>> PR:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
>> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR:
>> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
>> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 <
>> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338>
>> >>>>>> has
>> >>>>>>>>>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Does this look right?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now.
>> >>>> The
>> >>>>> PR
>> >>>>>>> was
>> >>>>>>>>>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since.
>> >>>> Sai
>> >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>> >>>>>>>>>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising
>> >>>>> given
>> >>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us
>> >>>> a
>> >>>>>>> update,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> maybe on the PR?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
>> >>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Juan,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new
>> >>>>>> branch
>> >>>>>>>>>>> has
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> not
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
>> >>>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello team,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The
>> >>>> pull
>> >>>>>>>>>>> request
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> has
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great! thanks
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
>> >>>>>>>>>>> undergo all
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in
>> >>>> 1.7.0,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> as
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> well
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any related commits
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone
>> >>>> added
>> >>>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We
>> >>>> also
>> >>>>>>>>>>> need
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for
>> >>>> backward-compatibility. If
>> >>>>>>>>>>> it's
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone
>> >>>> on the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release
>> >>>> process
>> >>>>> was
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we
>> >>>> stopped
>> >>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mid
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the
>> >>>> current
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> develop
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that
>> >>>> says
>> >>>>> its
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8.0.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating
>> >>>> against CN
>> >>>>>>>>>>> as a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any
>> >>>> further
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> concerns
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current
>> >>>> implementation
>> >>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> good
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
>> >>>>>>>>>>> something
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and
>> >>>> so it
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> needs a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what
>> >>>> we
>> >>>>>>>>>>> should
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> do
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
>> >>>> discussion,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I see
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for
>> >>>> 1.7:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
>> >>>>>>>>>>> merged
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review
>> >>>> Sai's
>> >>>>>>>>>>> PRs.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
>> >>>>> historical
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> bugs
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with
>> >>>> latest
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.gradle
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
>> >>>>>>>>>>> refactoring
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (DistributedTest
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OOMEs)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to
>> >>>> be
>> >>>>>>>>>>> fixed
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
>> >>>>>>>>>>> create a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues
>> >>>> with
>> >>>>>>>>>>> our
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> >>>>>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> >>>>>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>> >>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>> >>>>>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 -
>> >>>> 16:00
>> >>>>> GMT
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
>> >>>>> twitter]
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
>> >>>> facebook]
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
>> >>>>> plus]
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
>> >>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>> >>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00
>> >>>> GMT
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
>> >>>> twitter]
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
>> >>>> plus]
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
>> >>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
Status Update on release process for 1.7.0
- checkPom files are being modified to have version as 1.7.0 instead of
1.8.0-SNAPSHOT
- gradle.properties file has been modified to reflect 1.7.0 as the version.
- Version.java has been reverted to remove all changes corresponding to
1.8.0
- CommandInitializer.java has been reverted to remove changes for 1.8.0
- LuceneIndexCommandsJUnitTest.java has been modified to change
Version.GEODE_180 to GEODE_170
- LuceneIndexCommands.java has been modified to change Version.GEODE_180 to
GEODE_170
-TXCommitMessage.java has been modified to change Version.GEODE_180 to
GEODE_170
I will be getting in touch with the individual developers to verify my
changes.
The branch will be update once we get a green light on these changes.
Still need updates on these tickets:
GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
These tickets have commits into develop but they are still open with fix
version as 1.8.0
Regards
Nabarun Nag
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:38 PM Dale Emery <de...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> I have resolved GEODE-5254
>
> Dale
>
> > On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > Requesting status update on the following JIRA tickets. These tickets
> have
> > commits into develop against its name but the status is still open /
> > unresolved.
> >
> > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
> > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
> > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
> > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
> > GEODE-5254 - [Dale Emery]
> >
> > GEODE-4794 - [Sai]
> > GEODE-5594 - [Sai]
> >
> > Regards
> > Nabarun Nag
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Please continue using 1.7.0 as a fix version in JIRA till the email
> comes
> >> in that the 1.7.0 release branch has be cut.
> >>
> >> Changing the fixed version for the following tickets to 1.7.0 from 1.8.0
> >> as these fixes will be included in the 1.7.0 release
> >>
> >> GEODE-5671
> >> GEODE-5662
> >> GEODE-5660
> >> GEODE-5652
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Nabarun Nag
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> A new feature of get/set cluster config was added as new feature to
> gfsh.
> >>> This needs to be added to the documentation.
> >>> Once this is done, the branch will be ready.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Nabarun
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:15 PM Alexander Murmann <amurmann@pivotal.io
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Nabarun, do you still see anything blocking cutting the release at
> this
> >>>> point?
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe we can even get a pipeline going today? π³
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> We can go ahead and cut 1.7 with out GEODE-5338 as I don't have the
> >>>> code
> >>>>> ready.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> GEODE-5594, adds a new flag to enable hostname validation and is
> >>>> disabled
> >>>>> by default so we are good with changes that are already merged and
> >>>>> documentation for GEODE-5594 is ready merged.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Naba, after the branch is cut we should delete windows jobs from the
> >>>> branch
> >>>>> before we create the pipeline for 1.7.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Apologies for holding up the release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sai.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 10:23 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get closed before
> >>>> cutting
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>> branch.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us more
> >>>> time
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> review and complete the work.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Anthony
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> >>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing
> >>>> behavior
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> is not acceptable.
> >>>>>>>> Working on changing the implementation to have a default value
> >>>>> derived
> >>>>>>>> based on how user
> >>>>>>>> wants to configure SSL.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sai
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sai
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to
> >>>>> trusting
> >>>>>>>>>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to
> >>>> add
> >>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>> hostname
> >>>>>>>>>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default
> >>>>> trust
> >>>>>>>>>> store.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on
> >>>> GEODE-5338 PR.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sai
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> >>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open
> >>>> PR:
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR:
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 <
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338>
> >>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Does this look right?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now.
> >>>> The
> >>>>> PR
> >>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since.
> >>>> Sai
> >>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
> >>>>>>>>>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising
> >>>>> given
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us
> >>>> a
> >>>>>>> update,
> >>>>>>>>>>> maybe on the PR?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> >>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Juan,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new
> >>>>>> branch
> >>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> >>>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello team,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The
> >>>> pull
> >>>>>>>>>>> request
> >>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great! thanks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> >>>>>>>>>>> undergo all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in
> >>>> 1.7.0,
> >>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>> well
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any related commits
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone
> >>>> added
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We
> >>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for
> >>>> backward-compatibility. If
> >>>>>>>>>>> it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone
> >>>> on the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release
> >>>> process
> >>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we
> >>>> stopped
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> process
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mid
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the
> >>>> current
> >>>>>>>>>>>> develop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that
> >>>> says
> >>>>> its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8.0.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> >>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating
> >>>> against CN
> >>>>>>>>>>> as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any
> >>>> further
> >>>>>>>>>>>> concerns
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current
> >>>> implementation
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> good
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
> >>>>>>>>>>> something
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and
> >>>> so it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> needs a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> >>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what
> >>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>> do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
> >>>> discussion,
> >>>>>>>>>>> I see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for
> >>>> 1.7:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
> >>>>>>>>>>> merged
> >>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review
> >>>> Sai's
> >>>>>>>>>>> PRs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
> >>>>> historical
> >>>>>>>>>>>> bugs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with
> >>>> latest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.gradle
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> >>>>>>>>>>> refactoring
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> >>>>>>>>>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (DistributedTest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OOMEs)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to
> >>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>> fixed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
> >>>>>>>>>>> create a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues
> >>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >>>>>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >>>>>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >>>>>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 -
> >>>> 16:00
> >>>>> GMT
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> >>>>> twitter]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
> >>>> facebook]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
> >>>>> plus]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> >>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00
> >>>> GMT
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> >>>> twitter]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
> >>>> plus]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> >>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Dale Emery <de...@pivotal.io>.
I have resolved GEODE-5254
Dale
> On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> Requesting status update on the following JIRA tickets. These tickets have
> commits into develop against its name but the status is still open /
> unresolved.
>
> GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
> GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
> GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
> GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
> GEODE-5254 - [Dale Emery]
>
> GEODE-4794 - [Sai]
> GEODE-5594 - [Sai]
>
> Regards
> Nabarun Nag
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Please continue using 1.7.0 as a fix version in JIRA till the email comes
>> in that the 1.7.0 release branch has be cut.
>>
>> Changing the fixed version for the following tickets to 1.7.0 from 1.8.0
>> as these fixes will be included in the 1.7.0 release
>>
>> GEODE-5671
>> GEODE-5662
>> GEODE-5660
>> GEODE-5652
>>
>> Regards
>> Nabarun Nag
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> A new feature of get/set cluster config was added as new feature to gfsh.
>>> This needs to be added to the documentation.
>>> Once this is done, the branch will be ready.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Nabarun
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:15 PM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nabarun, do you still see anything blocking cutting the release at this
>>>> point?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we can even get a pipeline going today? π³
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We can go ahead and cut 1.7 with out GEODE-5338 as I don't have the
>>>> code
>>>>> ready.
>>>>>
>>>>> GEODE-5594, adds a new flag to enable hostname validation and is
>>>> disabled
>>>>> by default so we are good with changes that are already merged and
>>>>> documentation for GEODE-5594 is ready merged.
>>>>>
>>>>> Naba, after the branch is cut we should delete windows jobs from the
>>>> branch
>>>>> before we create the pipeline for 1.7.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apologies for holding up the release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sai.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 10:23 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get closed before
>>>> cutting
>>>>> the
>>>>>> branch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us more
>>>> time
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> review and complete the work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing
>>>> behavior
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> is not acceptable.
>>>>>>>> Working on changing the implementation to have a default value
>>>>> derived
>>>>>>>> based on how user
>>>>>>>> wants to configure SSL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sai
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sai
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to
>>>>> trusting
>>>>>>>>>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to
>>>> add
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> hostname
>>>>>>>>>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default
>>>>> trust
>>>>>>>>>> store.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on
>>>> GEODE-5338 PR.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open
>>>> PR:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 <
>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338>
>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does this look right?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now.
>>>> The
>>>>> PR
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since.
>>>> Sai
>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising
>>>>> given
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us
>>>> a
>>>>>>> update,
>>>>>>>>>>> maybe on the PR?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
>>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Juan,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new
>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
>>>>>> jramos@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello team,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The
>>>> pull
>>>>>>>>>>> request
>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great! thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
>>>>>>>>>>> undergo all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in
>>>> 1.7.0,
>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any related commits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone
>>>> added
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We
>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for
>>>> backward-compatibility. If
>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone
>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release
>>>> process
>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we
>>>> stopped
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the
>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>> develop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that
>>>> says
>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating
>>>> against CN
>>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any
>>>> further
>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
>>>>>>>>>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current
>>>> implementation
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
>>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and
>>>> so it
>>>>>>>>>>>> needs a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what
>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
>>>> discussion,
>>>>>>>>>>> I see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for
>>>> 1.7:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
>>>>>>>>>>> merged
>>>>>>>>>>>> PR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review
>>>> Sai's
>>>>>>>>>>> PRs.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
>>>>> historical
>>>>>>>>>>>> bugs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with
>>>> latest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build.gradle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
>>>>>>>>>>> refactoring
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
>>>>>>>>>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
>>>>>>>>>>>> (DistributedTest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OOMEs)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to
>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> fixed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
>>>>>>>>>>> create a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues
>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>>>>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>>>>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
>>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>>>>>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 -
>>>> 16:00
>>>>> GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
>>>>> twitter]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
>>>> facebook]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
>>>>> plus]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
>>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
>>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00
>>>> GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
>>>> twitter]
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
>>>> plus]
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
>>>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
Announcement : The branch for 1.7.0 has been cut. Please from this point
onwards use 1.8.0 as the fixed version for your JIRAs
Regards
Nabarun Nag
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:34 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Requesting status update on the following JIRA tickets. These tickets have
> commits into develop against its name but the status is still open /
> unresolved.
>
> GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
> GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
> GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
> GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
> GEODE-5254 - [Dale Emery]
>
> GEODE-4794 - [Sai]
> GEODE-5594 - [Sai]
>
> Regards
> Nabarun Nag
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Please continue using 1.7.0 as a fix version in JIRA till the email comes
>> in that the 1.7.0 release branch has be cut.
>>
>> Changing the fixed version for the following tickets to 1.7.0 from 1.8.0
>> as these fixes will be included in the 1.7.0 release
>>
>> GEODE-5671
>> GEODE-5662
>> GEODE-5660
>> GEODE-5652
>>
>> Regards
>> Nabarun Nag
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> A new feature of get/set cluster config was added as new feature to
>>> gfsh. This needs to be added to the documentation.
>>> Once this is done, the branch will be ready.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Nabarun
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:15 PM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nabarun, do you still see anything blocking cutting the release at this
>>>> point?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we can even get a pipeline going today? π³
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > We can go ahead and cut 1.7 with out GEODE-5338 as I don't have the
>>>> code
>>>> > ready.
>>>> >
>>>> > GEODE-5594, adds a new flag to enable hostname validation and is
>>>> disabled
>>>> > by default so we are good with changes that are already merged and
>>>> > documentation for GEODE-5594 is ready merged.
>>>> >
>>>> > Naba, after the branch is cut we should delete windows jobs from the
>>>> branch
>>>> > before we create the pipeline for 1.7.
>>>> >
>>>> > Apologies for holding up the release.
>>>> >
>>>> > Sai.
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 10:23 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get closed before
>>>> cutting
>>>> > the
>>>> > > branch.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Regards
>>>> > > Nabarun Nag
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us more
>>>> time
>>>> > to
>>>> > > > review and complete the work.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Thoughts?
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Anthony
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
>>>> > > sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>>>> > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing
>>>> behavior
>>>> > > and
>>>> > > > > is not acceptable.
>>>> > > > > Working on changing the implementation to have a default value
>>>> > derived
>>>> > > > > based on how user
>>>> > > > > wants to configure SSL.
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > Sai
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
>>>> > > > sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >> Sai
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
>>>> > > > >> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to
>>>> > trusting
>>>> > > > >>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement
>>>> to add
>>>> > a
>>>> > > > >>> hostname
>>>> > > > >>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default
>>>> > trust
>>>> > > > >>> store.
>>>> > > > >>>
>>>> > > > >>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
>>>> > > > >>>
>>>> > > > >>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on
>>>> GEODE-5338 PR.
>>>> > > > >>>
>>>> > > > >>> Sai
>>>> > > > >>>
>>>> > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
>>>> > > > amurmann@pivotal.io>
>>>> > > > >>> wrote:
>>>> > > > >>>
>>>> > > > >>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
>>>> > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > >>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open
>>>> PR:
>>>> > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
>>>> > > > >>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
>>>> > > > >>>> GEODE-5338 <
>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338>
>>>> > > has
>>>> > > > >>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
>>>> > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > >>>> Does this look right?
>>>> > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > >>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right
>>>> now. The
>>>> > PR
>>>> > > > was
>>>> > > > >>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing
>>>> since. Sai
>>>> > > > >>>> mentioned
>>>> > > > >>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising
>>>> > given
>>>> > > > the
>>>> > > > >>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give
>>>> us a
>>>> > > > update,
>>>> > > > >>>> maybe on the PR?
>>>> > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
>>>> > jramos@pivotal.io
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > >>>> wrote:
>>>> > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>> Thanks!!
>>>> > > > >>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <
>>>> nnag@apache.org>
>>>> > > wrote:
>>>> > > > >>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>> Hi Juan,
>>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The
>>>> new
>>>> > > branch
>>>> > > > >>>> has
>>>> > > > >>>>> not
>>>> > > > >>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
>>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>> Regards
>>>> > > > >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
>>>> > > jramos@pivotal.io
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Hello team,
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The
>>>> pull
>>>> > > > >>>> request
>>>> > > > >>>>> has
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Best regards.
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>>> > > > >>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> great! thanks
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
>>>> > > > >>>> undergo all
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in
>>>> 1.7.0,
>>>> > > > >>>> as
>>>> > > > >>>>> well
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> as
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> any related commits
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone
>>>> added
>>>> > > > >>>> the
>>>> > > > >>>>> 1.8
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that.
>>>> We also
>>>> > > > >>>> need
>>>> > > > >>>>> to
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> see
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for
>>>> backward-compatibility. If
>>>> > > > >>>> it's
>>>> > > > >>>>> in
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> use
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone
>>>> on the
>>>> > > > >>>>> branch
>>>> > > > >>>>>> if
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release
>>>> process
>>>> > was
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we
>>>> stopped
>>>> > that
>>>> > > > >>>>>> process
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> mid
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the
>>>> current
>>>> > > > >>>>> develop
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> pretty
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that
>>>> says
>>>> > its
>>>> > > > >>>>>> 1.8.0.
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Is
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
>>>> > > > >>>> (byte)0,
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating
>>>> against CN
>>>> > > > >>>> as a
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any
>>>> further
>>>> > > > >>>>> concerns
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following
>>>> with
>>>> > > > >>>>> GEODE-5338.
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>>> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
>>>> > > > >>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current
>>>> implementation
>>>> > is
>>>> > > > >>>>> good
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> and
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> needed
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
>>>> > > > >>>> something
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> about
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and
>>>> so it
>>>> > > > >>>>> needs a
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do
>>>> hostname
>>>> > > > >>>>> validation.
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what
>>>> we
>>>> > > > >>>> should
>>>> > > > >>>>> do
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> in a
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann
>>>> <
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
>>>> discussion,
>>>> > > > >>>> I see
>>>> > > > >>>>>> the
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves
>>>> for 1.7:
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
>>>> > > > >>>> merged
>>>> > > > >>>>> PR.
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> What
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> does
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review
>>>> Sai's
>>>> > > > >>>> PRs.
>>>> > > > >>>>> Is
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> that
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
>>>> > > > >>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
>>>> > > > >>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
>>>> > historical
>>>> > > > >>>>> bugs
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with
>>>> latest
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> build.gradle
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> and
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
>>>> > > > >>>> refactoring
>>>> > > > >>>>> is
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> also
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
>>>> > > > >>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
>>>> > > > >>>>> (DistributedTest
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> OOMEs)
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to
>>>> be
>>>> > > > >>>> fixed
>>>> > > > >>>>>> before
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
>>>> > > > >>>> create a
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> release
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues
>>>> with
>>>> > > > >>>> our
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> --
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>>> > > > <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>>> > > > <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
>>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>>>> > > > <(877)%20477-2269>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 -
>>>> 16:00
>>>> > GMT
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
>>>> > twitter]
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
>>>> facebook]
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
>>>> > plus]
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>>>> > > > >>>>>>> <
>>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
>>>> > eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>> --
>>>> > > > >>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>>>> > > > >>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>>>> > > > >>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>>>> > > > >>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>>> > > > >>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>>> > > > >>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
>>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>>>> > > > >>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 -
>>>> 16:00 GMT
>>>> > > > >>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>>>> > > > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>>>> > > > >>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>>>> > > > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>>>> > > > >>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
>>>> twitter]
>>>> > > > >>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>>>> > > > >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
>>>> facebook]
>>>> > > > >>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
>>>> plus]
>>>> > > > >>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>>>> > > > >>>>> <
>>>> > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
>>>> > eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>>>> > > > >>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>>
>>>> > > > >>>>
>>>> > > > >>>
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@pivotal.io>.
Requesting status update on the following JIRA tickets. These tickets have
commits into develop against its name but the status is still open /
unresolved.
GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg]
GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton]
GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton]
GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen]
GEODE-5254 - [Dale Emery]
GEODE-4794 - [Sai]
GEODE-5594 - [Sai]
Regards
Nabarun Nag
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Please continue using 1.7.0 as a fix version in JIRA till the email comes
> in that the 1.7.0 release branch has be cut.
>
> Changing the fixed version for the following tickets to 1.7.0 from 1.8.0
> as these fixes will be included in the 1.7.0 release
>
> GEODE-5671
> GEODE-5662
> GEODE-5660
> GEODE-5652
>
> Regards
> Nabarun Nag
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> A new feature of get/set cluster config was added as new feature to gfsh.
>> This needs to be added to the documentation.
>> Once this is done, the branch will be ready.
>>
>> Regards
>> Nabarun
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:15 PM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Nabarun, do you still see anything blocking cutting the release at this
>>> point?
>>>
>>> Maybe we can even get a pipeline going today? π³
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> > We can go ahead and cut 1.7 with out GEODE-5338 as I don't have the
>>> code
>>> > ready.
>>> >
>>> > GEODE-5594, adds a new flag to enable hostname validation and is
>>> disabled
>>> > by default so we are good with changes that are already merged and
>>> > documentation for GEODE-5594 is ready merged.
>>> >
>>> > Naba, after the branch is cut we should delete windows jobs from the
>>> branch
>>> > before we create the pipeline for 1.7.
>>> >
>>> > Apologies for holding up the release.
>>> >
>>> > Sai.
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 10:23 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get closed before
>>> cutting
>>> > the
>>> > > branch.
>>> > >
>>> > > Regards
>>> > > Nabarun Nag
>>> > >
>>> > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us more
>>> time
>>> > to
>>> > > > review and complete the work.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Thoughts?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Anthony
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
>>> > > sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing
>>> behavior
>>> > > and
>>> > > > > is not acceptable.
>>> > > > > Working on changing the implementation to have a default value
>>> > derived
>>> > > > > based on how user
>>> > > > > wants to configure SSL.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Sai
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
>>> > > > sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Sai
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
>>> > > > >> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to
>>> > trusting
>>> > > > >>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to
>>> add
>>> > a
>>> > > > >>> hostname
>>> > > > >>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default
>>> > trust
>>> > > > >>> store.
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on
>>> GEODE-5338 PR.
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>> Sai
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
>>> > > > amurmann@pivotal.io>
>>> > > > >>> wrote:
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > > >>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
>>> > > > >>>>
>>> > > > >>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open
>>> PR:
>>> > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
>>> > > > >>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR:
>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
>>> > > > >>>> GEODE-5338 <
>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338>
>>> > > has
>>> > > > >>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
>>> > > > >>>>
>>> > > > >>>> Does this look right?
>>> > > > >>>>
>>> > > > >>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now.
>>> The
>>> > PR
>>> > > > was
>>> > > > >>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since.
>>> Sai
>>> > > > >>>> mentioned
>>> > > > >>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising
>>> > given
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > >>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us
>>> a
>>> > > > update,
>>> > > > >>>> maybe on the PR?
>>> > > > >>>>
>>> > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
>>> > jramos@pivotal.io
>>> > > >
>>> > > > >>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>
>>> > > > >>>>> Thanks!!
>>> > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org
>>> >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>> Hi Juan,
>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new
>>> > > branch
>>> > > > >>>> has
>>> > > > >>>>> not
>>> > > > >>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>> Regards
>>> > > > >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
>>> > > jramos@pivotal.io
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>> Hello team,
>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The
>>> pull
>>> > > > >>>> request
>>> > > > >>>>> has
>>> > > > >>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
>>> > > > >>>>>>> Best regards.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>> > > > >>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>>> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>> great! thanks
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
>>> > > > >>>> undergo all
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in
>>> 1.7.0,
>>> > > > >>>> as
>>> > > > >>>>> well
>>> > > > >>>>>>> as
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> any related commits
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Regards
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>> > > > >>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone
>>> added
>>> > > > >>>> the
>>> > > > >>>>> 1.8
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We
>>> also
>>> > > > >>>> need
>>> > > > >>>>> to
>>> > > > >>>>>>> see
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for
>>> backward-compatibility. If
>>> > > > >>>> it's
>>> > > > >>>>> in
>>> > > > >>>>>>> use
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone
>>> on the
>>> > > > >>>>> branch
>>> > > > >>>>>> if
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release
>>> process
>>> > was
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we
>>> stopped
>>> > that
>>> > > > >>>>>> process
>>> > > > >>>>>>>> mid
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the
>>> current
>>> > > > >>>>> develop
>>> > > > >>>>>>>> pretty
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that
>>> says
>>> > its
>>> > > > >>>>>> 1.8.0.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Is
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
>>> > > > >>>> (byte)0,
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating
>>> against CN
>>> > > > >>>> as a
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any
>>> further
>>> > > > >>>>> concerns
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
>>> > > > >>>>> GEODE-5338.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
>>> > > > >>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current
>>> implementation
>>> > is
>>> > > > >>>>> good
>>> > > > >>>>>>> and
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> needed
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
>>> > > > >>>> something
>>> > > > >>>>>>> about
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and
>>> so it
>>> > > > >>>>> needs a
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
>>> > > > >>>>> validation.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what
>>> we
>>> > > > >>>> should
>>> > > > >>>>> do
>>> > > > >>>>>>> in a
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
>>> discussion,
>>> > > > >>>> I see
>>> > > > >>>>>> the
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for
>>> 1.7:
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
>>> > > > >>>> merged
>>> > > > >>>>> PR.
>>> > > > >>>>>>> What
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> does
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review
>>> Sai's
>>> > > > >>>> PRs.
>>> > > > >>>>> Is
>>> > > > >>>>>>>> that
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
>>> > > > >>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
>>> > > > >>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
>>> > historical
>>> > > > >>>>> bugs
>>> > > > >>>>>>>> fixed.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with
>>> latest
>>> > > > >>>>>>> build.gradle
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> and
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
>>> > > > >>>> refactoring
>>> > > > >>>>> is
>>> > > > >>>>>>>> also
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
>>> > > > >>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
>>> > > > >>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
>>> > > > >>>>> (DistributedTest
>>> > > > >>>>>>>> OOMEs)
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to
>>> be
>>> > > > >>>> fixed
>>> > > > >>>>>> before
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
>>> > > > >>>> create a
>>> > > > >>>>>>> release
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues
>>> with
>>> > > > >>>> our
>>> > > > >>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>> --
>>> > > > >>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>>> > > > >>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>>> > > > >>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>>> > > > >>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>> > > > <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>> > > > >>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>> > > > <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>> > > > >>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>>> > > > <(877)%20477-2269>
>>> > > > >>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 -
>>> 16:00
>>> > GMT
>>> > > > >>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>>> > > > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>>> > > > >>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>>> > > > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
>>> > twitter]
>>> > > > >>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>>> > > > >>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
>>> facebook]
>>> > > > >>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
>>> > plus]
>>> > > > >>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>>> > > > >>>>>>> <
>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>
>>> > > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
>>> > eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>> --
>>> > > > >>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>>> > > > >>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>>> > > > >>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>>> > > > >>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>> > > > >>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>> > > > >>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
>>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>>> > > > >>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00
>>> GMT
>>> > > > >>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>>> > > > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>>> > > > >>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>>> > > > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>>> > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
>>> twitter]
>>> > > > >>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>>> > > > >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
>>> > > > >>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
>>> plus]
>>> > > > >>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>>> > > > >>>>> <
>>> > > > >>>>
>>> > > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
>>> > eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>>> > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > >>>>
>>> > > > >>>
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
Please continue using 1.7.0 as a fix version in JIRA till the email comes
in that the 1.7.0 release branch has be cut.
Changing the fixed version for the following tickets to 1.7.0 from 1.8.0 as
these fixes will be included in the 1.7.0 release
GEODE-5671
GEODE-5662
GEODE-5660
GEODE-5652
Regards
Nabarun Nag
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> A new feature of get/set cluster config was added as new feature to gfsh.
> This needs to be added to the documentation.
> Once this is done, the branch will be ready.
>
> Regards
> Nabarun
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:15 PM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
>> Nabarun, do you still see anything blocking cutting the release at this
>> point?
>>
>> Maybe we can even get a pipeline going today? π³
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > We can go ahead and cut 1.7 with out GEODE-5338 as I don't have the code
>> > ready.
>> >
>> > GEODE-5594, adds a new flag to enable hostname validation and is
>> disabled
>> > by default so we are good with changes that are already merged and
>> > documentation for GEODE-5594 is ready merged.
>> >
>> > Naba, after the branch is cut we should delete windows jobs from the
>> branch
>> > before we create the pipeline for 1.7.
>> >
>> > Apologies for holding up the release.
>> >
>> > Sai.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 10:23 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get closed before cutting
>> > the
>> > > branch.
>> > >
>> > > Regards
>> > > Nabarun Nag
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us more
>> time
>> > to
>> > > > review and complete the work.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thoughts?
>> > > >
>> > > > Anthony
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
>> > > sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing
>> behavior
>> > > and
>> > > > > is not acceptable.
>> > > > > Working on changing the implementation to have a default value
>> > derived
>> > > > > based on how user
>> > > > > wants to configure SSL.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Sai
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
>> > > > sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Sai
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
>> > > > >> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to
>> > trusting
>> > > > >>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to
>> add
>> > a
>> > > > >>> hostname
>> > > > >>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default
>> > trust
>> > > > >>> store.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338
>> PR.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Sai
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
>> > > > amurmann@pivotal.io>
>> > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
>> > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
>> > > > >>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR:
>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
>> > > > >>>> GEODE-5338 <
>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338>
>> > > has
>> > > > >>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> Does this look right?
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now.
>> The
>> > PR
>> > > > was
>> > > > >>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since.
>> Sai
>> > > > >>>> mentioned
>> > > > >>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising
>> > given
>> > > > the
>> > > > >>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a
>> > > > update,
>> > > > >>>> maybe on the PR?
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
>> > jramos@pivotal.io
>> > > >
>> > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>>> Thanks!!
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> Hi Juan,
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new
>> > > branch
>> > > > >>>> has
>> > > > >>>>> not
>> > > > >>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> Regards
>> > > > >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
>> > > jramos@pivotal.io
>> > > > >
>> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> Hello team,
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The
>> pull
>> > > > >>>> request
>> > > > >>>>> has
>> > > > >>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
>> > > > >>>>>>> Best regards.
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>> > > > >>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> great! thanks
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
>> > > > >>>> undergo all
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in
>> 1.7.0,
>> > > > >>>> as
>> > > > >>>>> well
>> > > > >>>>>>> as
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> any related commits
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Regards
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>> > > > >>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone
>> added
>> > > > >>>> the
>> > > > >>>>> 1.8
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We
>> also
>> > > > >>>> need
>> > > > >>>>> to
>> > > > >>>>>>> see
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility.
>> If
>> > > > >>>> it's
>> > > > >>>>> in
>> > > > >>>>>>> use
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on
>> the
>> > > > >>>>> branch
>> > > > >>>>>> if
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release
>> process
>> > was
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped
>> > that
>> > > > >>>>>> process
>> > > > >>>>>>>> mid
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the
>> current
>> > > > >>>>> develop
>> > > > >>>>>>>> pretty
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that
>> says
>> > its
>> > > > >>>>>> 1.8.0.
>> > > > >>>>>>>> Is
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
>> > > > >>>> (byte)0,
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against
>> CN
>> > > > >>>> as a
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any
>> further
>> > > > >>>>> concerns
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
>> > > > >>>>> GEODE-5338.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
>> > > > >>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current
>> implementation
>> > is
>> > > > >>>>> good
>> > > > >>>>>>> and
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> needed
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
>> > > > >>>> something
>> > > > >>>>>>> about
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and
>> so it
>> > > > >>>>> needs a
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
>> > > > >>>>> validation.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
>> > > > >>>> should
>> > > > >>>>> do
>> > > > >>>>>>> in a
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
>> discussion,
>> > > > >>>> I see
>> > > > >>>>>> the
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for
>> 1.7:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
>> > > > >>>> merged
>> > > > >>>>> PR.
>> > > > >>>>>>> What
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> does
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review
>> Sai's
>> > > > >>>> PRs.
>> > > > >>>>> Is
>> > > > >>>>>>>> that
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
>> > > > >>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
>> > > > >>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
>> > historical
>> > > > >>>>> bugs
>> > > > >>>>>>>> fixed.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with
>> latest
>> > > > >>>>>>> build.gradle
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
>> > > > >>>> refactoring
>> > > > >>>>> is
>> > > > >>>>>>>> also
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
>> > > > >>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
>> > > > >>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
>> > > > >>>>> (DistributedTest
>> > > > >>>>>>>> OOMEs)
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
>> > > > >>>> fixed
>> > > > >>>>>> before
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
>> > > > >>>> create a
>> > > > >>>>>>> release
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues
>> with
>> > > > >>>> our
>> > > > >>>>>>>> pipeline.
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> --
>> > > > >>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>> > > > >>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>> > > > >>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>> > > > >>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> > > > <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> > > > >>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> > > > <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> > > > >>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>> > > > <(877)%20477-2269>
>> > > > >>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00
>> > GMT
>> > > > >>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>> > > > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>> > > > >>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>> > > > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
>> > twitter]
>> > > > >>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>> > > > >>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
>> facebook]
>> > > > >>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
>> > plus]
>> > > > >>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>> > > > >>>>>>> <
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
>> > eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> --
>> > > > >>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>> > > > >>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>> > > > >>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>> > > > >>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> > > > >>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> > > > >>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
>> <(877)%20477-2269>
>> > > > >>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00
>> GMT
>> > > > >>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>> > > > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>> > > > >>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>> > > > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
>> twitter]
>> > > > >>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>> > > > >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
>> > > > >>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
>> plus]
>> > > > >>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>> > > > >>>>> <
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
>> > eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>>
>> > > > >>>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
A new feature of get/set cluster config was added as new feature to gfsh.
This needs to be added to the documentation.
Once this is done, the branch will be ready.
Regards
Nabarun
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:15 PM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> Nabarun, do you still see anything blocking cutting the release at this
> point?
>
> Maybe we can even get a pipeline going today? π³
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > We can go ahead and cut 1.7 with out GEODE-5338 as I don't have the code
> > ready.
> >
> > GEODE-5594, adds a new flag to enable hostname validation and is disabled
> > by default so we are good with changes that are already merged and
> > documentation for GEODE-5594 is ready merged.
> >
> > Naba, after the branch is cut we should delete windows jobs from the
> branch
> > before we create the pipeline for 1.7.
> >
> > Apologies for holding up the release.
> >
> > Sai.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 10:23 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get closed before cutting
> > the
> > > branch.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Nabarun Nag
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us more
> time
> > to
> > > > review and complete the work.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Anthony
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing
> behavior
> > > and
> > > > > is not acceptable.
> > > > > Working on changing the implementation to have a default value
> > derived
> > > > > based on how user
> > > > > wants to configure SSL.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sai
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > > sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sai
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > > >> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to
> > trusting
> > > > >>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to
> add
> > a
> > > > >>> hostname
> > > > >>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default
> > trust
> > > > >>> store.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338
> PR.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Sai
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > > amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> > > > >>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR:
> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> > > > >>>> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338
> >
> > > has
> > > > >>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Does this look right?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now.
> The
> > PR
> > > > was
> > > > >>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since.
> Sai
> > > > >>>> mentioned
> > > > >>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising
> > given
> > > > the
> > > > >>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a
> > > > update,
> > > > >>>> maybe on the PR?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> > jramos@pivotal.io
> > > >
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks!!
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hi Juan,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new
> > > branch
> > > > >>>> has
> > > > >>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Regards
> > > > >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> > > jramos@pivotal.io
> > > > >
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Hello team,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
> > > > >>>> request
> > > > >>>>> has
> > > > >>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > > > >>>>>>> Best regards.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > >>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> great! thanks
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> > > > >>>> undergo all
> > > > >>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in
> 1.7.0,
> > > > >>>> as
> > > > >>>>> well
> > > > >>>>>>> as
> > > > >>>>>>>>> any related commits
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > >>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone
> added
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>>> 1.8
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We
> also
> > > > >>>> need
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>> see
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility.
> If
> > > > >>>> it's
> > > > >>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>> use
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on
> the
> > > > >>>>> branch
> > > > >>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process
> > was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped
> > that
> > > > >>>>>> process
> > > > >>>>>>>> mid
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the
> current
> > > > >>>>> develop
> > > > >>>>>>>> pretty
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says
> > its
> > > > >>>>>> 1.8.0.
> > > > >>>>>>>> Is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> > > > >>>> (byte)0,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against
> CN
> > > > >>>> as a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> > > > >>>>> concerns
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> > > > >>>>> GEODE-5338.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> > > > >>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current
> implementation
> > is
> > > > >>>>> good
> > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> needed
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
> > > > >>>> something
> > > > >>>>>>> about
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so
> it
> > > > >>>>> needs a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> > > > >>>>> validation.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
> > > > >>>> should
> > > > >>>>> do
> > > > >>>>>>> in a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
> discussion,
> > > > >>>> I see
> > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for
> 1.7:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
> > > > >>>> merged
> > > > >>>>> PR.
> > > > >>>>>>> What
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> does
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review
> Sai's
> > > > >>>> PRs.
> > > > >>>>> Is
> > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> > > > >>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> > > > >>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
> > historical
> > > > >>>>> bugs
> > > > >>>>>>>> fixed.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with
> latest
> > > > >>>>>>> build.gradle
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> > > > >>>> refactoring
> > > > >>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>> also
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> > > > >>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> > > > >>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> > > > >>>>> (DistributedTest
> > > > >>>>>>>> OOMEs)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
> > > > >>>> fixed
> > > > >>>>>> before
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
> > > > >>>> create a
> > > > >>>>>>> release
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues
> with
> > > > >>>> our
> > > > >>>>>>>> pipeline.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > > >>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > > >>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > > >>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > > <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > > >>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > > <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > > >>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > > <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > > >>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00
> > GMT
> > > > >>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > > > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > > >>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > > > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> > twitter]
> > > > >>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > > >>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > > > >>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
> > plus]
> > > > >>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > > >>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> > eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> --
> > > > >>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > > >>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > > >>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > > >>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > > >>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > > >>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > > >>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00
> GMT
> > > > >>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > > > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > > >>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > > > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> twitter]
> > > > >>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > > >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > > > >>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
> plus]
> > > > >>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > > >>>>> <
> > > > >>>>
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> > eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>.
Nabarun, do you still see anything blocking cutting the release at this
point?
Maybe we can even get a pipeline going today? π³
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> wrote:
> We can go ahead and cut 1.7 with out GEODE-5338 as I don't have the code
> ready.
>
> GEODE-5594, adds a new flag to enable hostname validation and is disabled
> by default so we are good with changes that are already merged and
> documentation for GEODE-5594 is ready merged.
>
> Naba, after the branch is cut we should delete windows jobs from the branch
> before we create the pipeline for 1.7.
>
> Apologies for holding up the release.
>
> Sai.
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 10:23 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get closed before cutting
> the
> > branch.
> >
> > Regards
> > Nabarun Nag
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us more time
> to
> > > review and complete the work.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> > sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing behavior
> > and
> > > > is not acceptable.
> > > > Working on changing the implementation to have a default value
> derived
> > > > based on how user
> > > > wants to configure SSL.
> > > >
> > > > Sai
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
> > > >>
> > > >> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sai
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > >> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to
> trusting
> > > >>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add
> a
> > > >>> hostname
> > > >>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default
> trust
> > > >>> store.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Sai
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> > > >>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> > > >>>> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338>
> > has
> > > >>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Does this look right?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The
> PR
> > > was
> > > >>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
> > > >>>> mentioned
> > > >>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising
> given
> > > the
> > > >>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a
> > > update,
> > > >>>> maybe on the PR?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> jramos@pivotal.io
> > >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks!!
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hi Juan,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new
> > branch
> > > >>>> has
> > > >>>>> not
> > > >>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Regards
> > > >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> > jramos@pivotal.io
> > > >
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Hello team,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
> > > >>>> request
> > > >>>>> has
> > > >>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > > >>>>>>> Best regards.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > >>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> great! thanks
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> > > >>>> undergo all
> > > >>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
> > > >>>> as
> > > >>>>> well
> > > >>>>>>> as
> > > >>>>>>>>> any related commits
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > >>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > >>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>> 1.8
> > > >>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also
> > > >>>> need
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>> see
> > > >>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If
> > > >>>> it's
> > > >>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>> use
> > > >>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> > > >>>>> branch
> > > >>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process
> was
> > > >>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped
> that
> > > >>>>>> process
> > > >>>>>>>> mid
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> > > >>>>> develop
> > > >>>>>>>> pretty
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > >>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says
> its
> > > >>>>>> 1.8.0.
> > > >>>>>>>> Is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> > > >>>> (byte)0,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN
> > > >>>> as a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> > > >>>>> concerns
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> > > >>>>> GEODE-5338.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> > > >>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation
> is
> > > >>>>> good
> > > >>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> needed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
> > > >>>> something
> > > >>>>>>> about
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
> > > >>>>> needs a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> > > >>>>> validation.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
> > > >>>> should
> > > >>>>> do
> > > >>>>>>> in a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > >>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion,
> > > >>>> I see
> > > >>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
> > > >>>> merged
> > > >>>>> PR.
> > > >>>>>>> What
> > > >>>>>>>>>> does
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's
> > > >>>> PRs.
> > > >>>>> Is
> > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> > > >>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> > > >>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
> historical
> > > >>>>> bugs
> > > >>>>>>>> fixed.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
> > > >>>>>>> build.gradle
> > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> > > >>>> refactoring
> > > >>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>> also
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> > > >>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> > > >>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> > > >>>>> (DistributedTest
> > > >>>>>>>> OOMEs)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
> > > >>>> fixed
> > > >>>>>> before
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
> > > >>>> create a
> > > >>>>>>> release
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with
> > > >>>> our
> > > >>>>>>>> pipeline.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > >>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > >>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > >>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > >>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > >>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > >>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00
> GMT
> > > >>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > >>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> twitter]
> > > >>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > >>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > > >>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
> plus]
> > > >>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > >>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > >>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > >>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > >>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > >>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > >>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > >>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> > > >>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > >>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> > > >>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > > >>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> > > >>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > >>>>> <
> > > >>>>
> > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>.
We can go ahead and cut 1.7 with out GEODE-5338 as I don't have the code
ready.
GEODE-5594, adds a new flag to enable hostname validation and is disabled
by default so we are good with changes that are already merged and
documentation for GEODE-5594 is ready merged.
Naba, after the branch is cut we should delete windows jobs from the branch
before we create the pipeline for 1.7.
Apologies for holding up the release.
Sai.
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 10:23 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get closed before cutting the
> branch.
>
> Regards
> Nabarun Nag
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us more time to
> > review and complete the work.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing behavior
> and
> > > is not acceptable.
> > > Working on changing the implementation to have a default value derived
> > > based on how user
> > > wants to configure SSL.
> > >
> > > Sai
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
> > >>
> > >> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
> > >>
> > >> Sai
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > >> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
> > >>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
> > >>> hostname
> > >>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust
> > >>> store.
> > >>>
> > >>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> > >>>
> > >>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
> > >>>
> > >>> Sai
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> > >>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> > >>>> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338>
> has
> > >>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Does this look right?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR
> > was
> > >>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
> > >>>> mentioned
> > >>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given
> > the
> > >>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a
> > update,
> > >>>> maybe on the PR?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jramos@pivotal.io
> >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks!!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi Juan,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new
> branch
> > >>>> has
> > >>>>> not
> > >>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Regards
> > >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> jramos@pivotal.io
> > >
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Hello team,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
> > >>>> request
> > >>>>> has
> > >>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > >>>>>>> Best regards.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > >>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> great! thanks
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> > >>>> undergo all
> > >>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
> > >>>> as
> > >>>>> well
> > >>>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>>>> any related commits
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Regards
> > >>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > >>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>> 1.8
> > >>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also
> > >>>> need
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>> see
> > >>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If
> > >>>> it's
> > >>>>> in
> > >>>>>>> use
> > >>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> > >>>>> branch
> > >>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
> > >>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that
> > >>>>>> process
> > >>>>>>>> mid
> > >>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> > >>>>> develop
> > >>>>>>>> pretty
> > >>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > >>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its
> > >>>>>> 1.8.0.
> > >>>>>>>> Is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> > >>>> (byte)0,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN
> > >>>> as a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> > >>>>> concerns
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> > >>>>> GEODE-5338.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> > >>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is
> > >>>>> good
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> needed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
> > >>>> something
> > >>>>>>> about
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
> > >>>>> needs a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> > >>>>> validation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
> > >>>> should
> > >>>>> do
> > >>>>>>> in a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > >>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion,
> > >>>> I see
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
> > >>>> merged
> > >>>>> PR.
> > >>>>>>> What
> > >>>>>>>>>> does
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's
> > >>>> PRs.
> > >>>>> Is
> > >>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> > >>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> > >>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical
> > >>>>> bugs
> > >>>>>>>> fixed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
> > >>>>>>> build.gradle
> > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> > >>>> refactoring
> > >>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>> also
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> > >>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> > >>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> > >>>>> (DistributedTest
> > >>>>>>>> OOMEs)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
> > >>>> fixed
> > >>>>>> before
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
> > >>>> create a
> > >>>>>>> release
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with
> > >>>> our
> > >>>>>>>> pipeline.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > >>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > >>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > >>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> > <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> > >>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > >>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> > >>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > >>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > >>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> > >>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > >>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > >>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > >>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > >>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> > >>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > >>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> > >>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > >>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> > >>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > >>>>> <
> > >>>>
> > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get closed before cutting the
branch.
Regards
Nabarun Nag
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us more time to
> review and complete the work.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Anthony
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing behavior and
> > is not acceptable.
> > Working on changing the implementation to have a default value derived
> > based on how user
> > wants to configure SSL.
> >
> > Sai
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
> >>
> >> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
> >>
> >> Sai
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
> >>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
> >>> hostname
> >>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust
> >>> store.
> >>>
> >>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> >>>
> >>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
> >>>
> >>> Sai
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> amurmann@pivotal.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> >>>>
> >>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> >>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> >>>> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338> has
> >>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does this look right?
> >>>>
> >>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR
> was
> >>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
> >>>> mentioned
> >>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given
> the
> >>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a
> update,
> >>>> maybe on the PR?
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thanks!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Juan,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch
> >>>> has
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jramos@pivotal.io
> >
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hello team,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
> >>>> request
> >>>>> has
> >>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> >>>>>>> Best regards.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> great! thanks
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> >>>> undergo all
> >>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
> >>>> as
> >>>>> well
> >>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>> any related commits
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added
> >>>> the
> >>>>> 1.8
> >>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also
> >>>> need
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If
> >>>> it's
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>> use
> >>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> >>>>> branch
> >>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
> >>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
> >>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that
> >>>>>> process
> >>>>>>>> mid
> >>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> >>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> >>>>> develop
> >>>>>>>> pretty
> >>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its
> >>>>>> 1.8.0.
> >>>>>>>> Is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> >>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> >>>> (byte)0,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN
> >>>> as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> >>>>> concerns
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> >>>>> GEODE-5338.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> >>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is
> >>>>> good
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> needed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
> >>>> something
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
> >>>>> needs a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> >>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
> >>>> should
> >>>>> do
> >>>>>>> in a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> >>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion,
> >>>> I see
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
> >>>> merged
> >>>>> PR.
> >>>>>>> What
> >>>>>>>>>> does
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's
> >>>> PRs.
> >>>>> Is
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> >>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> >>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical
> >>>>> bugs
> >>>>>>>> fixed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
> >>>>>>> build.gradle
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> >>>> refactoring
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> >>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> >>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> >>>>> (DistributedTest
> >>>>>>>> OOMEs)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
> >>>> fixed
> >>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
> >>>> create a
> >>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with
> >>>> our
> >>>>>>>> pipeline.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> >>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> <(877)%20477-2269>
> >>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> >>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> >>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> >>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> >>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> >>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> >>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> >>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> >>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> >>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> >>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> >>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >>>>> <
> >>>>
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>.
+1 to cutting without
Given the back and forth we have seen on the TLS change, I'd rather avoid
rushing it.
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us more time to
> review and complete the work.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Anthony
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing behavior and
> > is not acceptable.
> > Working on changing the implementation to have a default value derived
> > based on how user
> > wants to configure SSL.
> >
> > Sai
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
> >>
> >> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
> >>
> >> Sai
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
> >>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
> >>> hostname
> >>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust
> >>> store.
> >>>
> >>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> >>>
> >>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
> >>>
> >>> Sai
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> amurmann@pivotal.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> >>>>
> >>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> >>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> >>>> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338> has
> >>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does this look right?
> >>>>
> >>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR
> was
> >>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
> >>>> mentioned
> >>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given
> the
> >>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a
> update,
> >>>> maybe on the PR?
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thanks!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Juan,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch
> >>>> has
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jramos@pivotal.io
> >
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hello team,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
> >>>> request
> >>>>> has
> >>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> >>>>>>> Best regards.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> great! thanks
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> >>>> undergo all
> >>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
> >>>> as
> >>>>> well
> >>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>> any related commits
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added
> >>>> the
> >>>>> 1.8
> >>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also
> >>>> need
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If
> >>>> it's
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>> use
> >>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> >>>>> branch
> >>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
> >>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
> >>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that
> >>>>>> process
> >>>>>>>> mid
> >>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> >>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> >>>>> develop
> >>>>>>>> pretty
> >>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its
> >>>>>> 1.8.0.
> >>>>>>>> Is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> >>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> >>>> (byte)0,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN
> >>>> as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> >>>>> concerns
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> >>>>> GEODE-5338.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> >>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is
> >>>>> good
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> needed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
> >>>> something
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
> >>>>> needs a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> >>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
> >>>> should
> >>>>> do
> >>>>>>> in a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> >>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion,
> >>>> I see
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
> >>>> merged
> >>>>> PR.
> >>>>>>> What
> >>>>>>>>>> does
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's
> >>>> PRs.
> >>>>> Is
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> >>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> >>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical
> >>>>> bugs
> >>>>>>>> fixed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
> >>>>>>> build.gradle
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> >>>> refactoring
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> >>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> >>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> >>>>> (DistributedTest
> >>>>>>>> OOMEs)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
> >>>> fixed
> >>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
> >>>> create a
> >>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with
> >>>> our
> >>>>>>>> pipeline.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> >>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> >>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> >>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> >>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> >>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> >>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> >>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> >>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611
> >>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
> >>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
> >>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> >>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> >>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> >>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> >>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >>>>> <
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us more time to review and complete the work.
Thoughts?
Anthony
> On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing behavior and
> is not acceptable.
> Working on changing the implementation to have a default value derived
> based on how user
> wants to configure SSL.
>
> Sai
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
>>
>> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
>>
>> Sai
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
>>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
>>> hostname
>>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust
>>> store.
>>>
>>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
>>>
>>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
>>>
>>> Sai
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
>>>>
>>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
>>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
>>>> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338> has
>>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
>>>>
>>>> Does this look right?
>>>>
>>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR was
>>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
>>>> mentioned
>>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given the
>>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a update,
>>>> maybe on the PR?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Juan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch
>>>> has
>>>>> not
>>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello team,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
>>>> request
>>>>> has
>>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
>>>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> great! thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
>>>> undergo all
>>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
>>>> as
>>>>> well
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> any related commits
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added
>>>> the
>>>>> 1.8
>>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also
>>>> need
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If
>>>> it's
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
>>>>> branch
>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
>>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
>>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that
>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>> mid
>>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
>>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
>>>>> develop
>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its
>>>>>> 1.8.0.
>>>>>>>> Is
>>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
>>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
>>>> (byte)0,
>>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN
>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
>>>>> concerns
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
>>>>> GEODE-5338.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
>>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
>>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is
>>>>> good
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> needed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
>>>> something
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
>>>>> needs a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
>>>> should
>>>>> do
>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
>>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion,
>>>> I see
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
>>>> merged
>>>>> PR.
>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's
>>>> PRs.
>>>>> Is
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
>>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
>>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical
>>>>> bugs
>>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
>>>>>>> build.gradle
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
>>>> refactoring
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
>>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
>>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
>>>>> (DistributedTest
>>>>>>>> OOMEs)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
>>>> fixed
>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
>>>> create a
>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with
>>>> our
>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611
>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>>>>>
>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>>>>> <
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>.
I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing behavior and
is not acceptable.
Working on changing the implementation to have a default value derived
based on how user
wants to configure SSL.
Sai
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
>
> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
>
> Sai
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <
> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
>> hostname
>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust
>> store.
>>
>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
>>
>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
>>
>> Sai
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
>>>
>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
>>> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338> has
>>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
>>>
>>> Does this look right?
>>>
>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR was
>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
>>> mentioned
>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given the
>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a update,
>>> maybe on the PR?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Thanks!!
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi Juan,
>>> > >
>>> > > GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch
>>> has
>>> > not
>>> > > yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
>>> > >
>>> > > Regards
>>> > > Nabarun Nag
>>> > >
>>> > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Hello team,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
>>> request
>>> > has
>>> > > > been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
>>> > > > Best regards.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>> > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > great! thanks
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>>> > > > > > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
>>> undergo all
>>> > > > > > compatibility and upgrade tests.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
>>> as
>>> > well
>>> > > > as
>>> > > > > > any related commits
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Regards
>>> > > > > > Nabarun Nag
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>> > > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added
>>> the
>>> > 1.8
>>> > > > > >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also
>>> need
>>> > to
>>> > > > see
>>> > > > > >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If
>>> it's
>>> > in
>>> > > > use
>>> > > > > >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
>>> > branch
>>> > > if
>>> > > > > >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > > >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>>> > > > > >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
>>> > > > > >> in-progress,
>>> > > > > >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that
>>> > > process
>>> > > > > mid
>>> > > > > >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
>>> > > > > >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
>>> > develop
>>> > > > > pretty
>>> > > > > >>> soon.
>>> > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > >>> Regards
>>> > > > > >>> Nabarun
>>> > > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>> > > > > >> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>>> > > > > >>> wrote:
>>> > > > > >>>
>>> > > > > >>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its
>>> > > 1.8.0.
>>> > > > > Is
>>> > > > > >>>> that intentional?
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
>>> > > > > >>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
>>> (byte)0,
>>> > > > > >>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>
>>> > > > > >>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
>>> > > > > >>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN
>>> as a
>>> > > > > >>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
>>> > concerns
>>> > > > > >>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
>>> > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
>>> > GEODE-5338.
>>> > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>> Sai
>>> > > > > >>>>> [1]
>>> > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
>>> > 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
>>> > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
>>> > > > > >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>>> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > >>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is
>>> > good
>>> > > > and
>>> > > > > >>>> needed
>>> > > > > >>>>>> more coverage.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
>>> something
>>> > > > about
>>> > > > > >>>> JDK's
>>> > > > > >>>>>> default implementation of
>>> > > > > >>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
>>> > needs a
>>> > > > > >>>>>> rethought. It could result in
>>> > > > > >>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
>>> > validation.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
>>> should
>>> > do
>>> > > > in a
>>> > > > > >>>>>> different thread.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>> Sai
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
>>> > > > > >> amurmann@pivotal.io
>>> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion,
>>> I see
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> following
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
>>> merged
>>> > PR.
>>> > > > What
>>> > > > > >> does
>>> > > > > >>>> it
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> mean?
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's
>>> PRs.
>>> > Is
>>> > > > > that
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> correct?
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
>>> > > jdeppe@pivotal.io>
>>> > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
>>> > > gzhou@pivotal.io
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > >>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> +1
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical
>>> > bugs
>>> > > > > fixed.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
>>> > > > build.gradle
>>> > > > > >> and
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
>>> refactoring
>>> > is
>>> > > > > also
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> success.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
>>> > > > > abaker@pivotal.io>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Anthony
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
>>> > dsmith@pivotal.io>
>>> > > > > >> wrote:
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
>>> > (DistributedTest
>>> > > > > OOMEs)
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> and
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
>>> fixed
>>> > > before
>>> > > > > >>>>>>> cutting
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
>>> create a
>>> > > > release
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>> branch
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> from
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with
>>> our
>>> > > > > pipeline.
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
>>> > > > > >>
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --
>>> > > > Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>>> > > > Senior Technical Support Engineer
>>> > > > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>>> > > > Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>> > > > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>> > > > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
>>> > > > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
>>> > > > How to upload artifacts:
>>> > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>>> > > > How to escalate a ticket:
>>> > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>>> > > >
>>> > > > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
>>> > > > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>>> > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
>>> > > > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
>>> > > > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>>> > > > <
>>> > >
>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>>> > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>>> > Senior Technical Support Engineer
>>> > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>>> > Office#: +353 21 4238611
>>> > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
>>> > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
>>> > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
>>> > How to upload artifacts:
>>> > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>>> > How to escalate a ticket:
>>> > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>>> >
>>> > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
>>> > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>>> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
>>> > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
>>> > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>>> > <
>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>.
I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop.
GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin.
Sai
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
> hostname
> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust store.
>
> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
>
> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
>
> Sai
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
>>
>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
>> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
>> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338> has
>> open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
>>
>> Does this look right?
>>
>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR was
>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
>> mentioned
>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given the
>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a update,
>> maybe on the PR?
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks!!
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Juan,
>> > >
>> > > GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch
>> has
>> > not
>> > > yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
>> > >
>> > > Regards
>> > > Nabarun Nag
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hello team,
>> > > >
>> > > > Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
>> request
>> > has
>> > > > been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
>> > > > Best regards.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>> > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > great! thanks
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>> > > > > > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will undergo
>> all
>> > > > > > compatibility and upgrade tests.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0, as
>> > well
>> > > > as
>> > > > > > any related commits
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Regards
>> > > > > > Nabarun Nag
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>> > > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added
>> the
>> > 1.8
>> > > > > >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also
>> need
>> > to
>> > > > see
>> > > > > >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If
>> it's
>> > in
>> > > > use
>> > > > > >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
>> > branch
>> > > if
>> > > > > >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>> > > > > >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
>> > > > > >> in-progress,
>> > > > > >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that
>> > > process
>> > > > > mid
>> > > > > >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
>> > > > > >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
>> > develop
>> > > > > pretty
>> > > > > >>> soon.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Regards
>> > > > > >>> Nabarun
>> > > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>> > > > > >> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>> > > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its
>> > > 1.8.0.
>> > > > > Is
>> > > > > >>>> that intentional?
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
>> > > > > >>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
>> (byte)0,
>> > > > > >>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as
>> a
>> > > > > >>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
>> > concerns
>> > > > > >>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
>> > GEODE-5338.
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>> Sai
>> > > > > >>>>> [1]
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
>> > 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
>> > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
>> > > > > >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is
>> > good
>> > > > and
>> > > > > >>>> needed
>> > > > > >>>>>> more coverage.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
>> something
>> > > > about
>> > > > > >>>> JDK's
>> > > > > >>>>>> default implementation of
>> > > > > >>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
>> > needs a
>> > > > > >>>>>> rethought. It could result in
>> > > > > >>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
>> > validation.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
>> should
>> > do
>> > > > in a
>> > > > > >>>>>> different thread.
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> Sai
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
>> > > > > >> amurmann@pivotal.io
>> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I
>> see
>> > > the
>> > > > > >>>>>>> following
>> > > > > >>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
>> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
>> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged
>> > PR.
>> > > > What
>> > > > > >> does
>> > > > > >>>> it
>> > > > > >>>>>>> mean?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's
>> PRs.
>> > Is
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > >>>>>>> correct?
>> > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
>> > > jdeppe@pivotal.io>
>> > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
>> > > gzhou@pivotal.io
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> +1
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical
>> > bugs
>> > > > > fixed.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
>> > > > build.gradle
>> > > > > >> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
>> refactoring
>> > is
>> > > > > also
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> success.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
>> > > > > abaker@pivotal.io>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Anthony
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
>> > dsmith@pivotal.io>
>> > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
>> > (DistributedTest
>> > > > > OOMEs)
>> > > > > >>>>>>> and
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed
>> > > before
>> > > > > >>>>>>> cutting
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create
>> a
>> > > > release
>> > > > > >>>>>>>> branch
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> from
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with our
>> > > > > pipeline.
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>> > > > Senior Technical Support Engineer
>> > > > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>> > > > Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>> > > > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>> > > > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
>> > > > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
>> > > > How to upload artifacts:
>> > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>> > > > How to escalate a ticket:
>> > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>> > > >
>> > > > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
>> > > > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>> > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
>> > > > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
>> > > > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>> > > > <
>> > >
>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>> > Senior Technical Support Engineer
>> > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>> > Office#: +353 21 4238611
>> > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
>> > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
>> > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
>> > How to upload artifacts:
>> > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>> > How to escalate a ticket:
>> > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>> >
>> > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
>> > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
>> > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
>> > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>> > <
>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl>
>> >
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io>.
Fix has been checked in to develop for GEODE-5601.
> On Aug 29, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> I think we should delete the windows jobs from the release/1.7 branch. That
> will make it clearer that we are intentionally don't care about the results
> of those jobs because they are not yet baked.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 for ignoring Windows jobs. As far as I can tell it's not failing due to
>> product issues and we don't ship the pipeline to users.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>
>>> I've just fixed GEODE-5661 (Pulse does not work when legacy SSL options
>> are
>>> used) that I'd also like included. PR is approved and I will merge it in
>>> after standup.
>>>
>>> --Jens
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 3:42 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Develop pipeline is not dependent on Windows jobs and the initial
>> reason
>>>> being not to slow down the pipeline.
>>>> But the WindowsIntegrationTest has not had a consistent green runs and
>> is
>>>> red either
>>>> - due to gradle crashing half-way through (not enough
>> memory?)
>>> or
>>>> - a flaky test
>>>>
>>>> So should we be considering windows jobs for the release 1.7.0?
>>>> Pipeline does not already depend on windows jobs, so we can ignore
>> those
>>>> jobs for 1.7.0 or make them invisible until they are stable?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:37 PM Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I expect to close PR#2368 for GEODE-5590 without merging it due to
>>>>> unexpected test failures in other test categories.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead I have PR#2389 (for GEODE 5601) to attain stable test results
>>> for
>>>>> AcceptanceTests. This is a simpler fix to the problem at the expense
>>> of a
>>>>> slightly longer runtime for AcceptanceTests (~2min).
>>>>>
>>>>> Once we have reliable test results we can take additional time to
>>> improve
>>>>> the build/test process for future releases.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I waiting for a green precheckin for GEODE-5594.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sai
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Alexander Murmann <
>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for chiming in, Sai! Are you at this point waiting for more
>>>>> reviews?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to
>>> trusting
>>>>>>>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to
>> add
>>> a
>>>>>>>> hostname
>>>>>>>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default
>>> trust
>>>>>>> store.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338
>> PR.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sai
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/
>> geode/pull/2346
>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338
>>>
>>>> has
>>>>>>>> open
>>>>>>>>> PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does this look right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now.
>> The
>>> PR
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since.
>> Sai
>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising
>>> given
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a
>>>>> update,
>>>>>>>>> maybe on the PR?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
>>> jramos@pivotal.io
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Juan,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new
>>>> branch
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
>>>>>>> jramos@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello team,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
>>>>>>>> request
>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> great! thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
>>>>>>> undergo
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in
>> 1.7.0,
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any related commits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone
>> added
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> 1.8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We
>> also
>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility.
>> If
>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on
>> the
>>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the
>> current
>>>>>>>>>> develop
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says
>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>> 1.8.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
>>>>>>>> (byte)0,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against
>> CN
>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
>>>>>>>>>> concerns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
>> 906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
>>>>>>>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current
>> implementation
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so
>> it
>>>>>>>>>> needs a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
>>>>>>> discussion, I
>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for
>> 1.7:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
>>>>>>>> merged
>>>>>>>>>> PR.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review
>> Sai's
>>>>>>>>> PRs.
>>>>>>>>>> Is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
>>>>>>>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
>>>>>>>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
>>>>>>> historical
>>>>>>>>>> bugs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with
>> latest
>>>>>>>>>>>> build.gradle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
>>>>>>>>> refactoring
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
>>>>>>>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
>>>>>>>>>> (DistributedTest
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OOMEs)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
>>>>>>>> fixed
>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
>>>>>>>> create a
>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues
>> with
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>>>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00
>>> GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>>>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
>>> twitter]
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
>>> plus]
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>>>>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>>>>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611
>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
>>>>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00
>> GMT
>>>>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>>>>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>>>>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
>> twitter]
>>>>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
>> plus]
>>>>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
>>> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Dan. I will make a note to remove these when we cut the branch.
Sai
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 9:46 AM Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> I think we should delete the windows jobs from the release/1.7 branch. That
> will make it clearer that we are intentionally don't care about the results
> of those jobs because they are not yet baked.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 for ignoring Windows jobs. As far as I can tell it's not failing due
> to
> > product issues and we don't ship the pipeline to users.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > I've just fixed GEODE-5661 (Pulse does not work when legacy SSL options
> > are
> > > used) that I'd also like included. PR is approved and I will merge it
> in
> > > after standup.
> > >
> > > --Jens
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 3:42 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Develop pipeline is not dependent on Windows jobs and the initial
> > reason
> > > > being not to slow down the pipeline.
> > > > But the WindowsIntegrationTest has not had a consistent green runs
> and
> > is
> > > > red either
> > > > - due to gradle crashing half-way through (not enough
> > memory?)
> > > or
> > > > - a flaky test
> > > >
> > > > So should we be considering windows jobs for the release 1.7.0?
> > > > Pipeline does not already depend on windows jobs, so we can ignore
> > those
> > > > jobs for 1.7.0 or make them invisible until they are stable?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:37 PM Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I expect to close PR#2368 for GEODE-5590 without merging it due to
> > > > > unexpected test failures in other test categories.
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead I have PR#2389 (for GEODE 5601) to attain stable test
> results
> > > for
> > > > > AcceptanceTests. This is a simpler fix to the problem at the
> expense
> > > of a
> > > > > slightly longer runtime for AcceptanceTests (~2min).
> > > > >
> > > > > Once we have reliable test results we can take additional time to
> > > improve
> > > > > the build/test process for future releases.
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Aug 28, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > > sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I waiting for a green precheckin for GEODE-5594.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sai
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > > amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Thanks for chiming in, Sai! Are you at this point waiting for
> more
> > > > > reviews?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > > > >> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to
> > > trusting
> > > > > >>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to
> > add
> > > a
> > > > > >>> hostname
> > > > > >>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default
> > > trust
> > > > > >> store.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338
> > PR.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Sai
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > > > amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open
> PR:
> > > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> > > > > >>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/
> > geode/pull/2346
> > > > > >>>> GEODE-5338 <
> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338
> > >
> > > > has
> > > > > >>> open
> > > > > >>>> PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Does this look right?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now.
> > The
> > > PR
> > > > > >> was
> > > > > >>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since.
> > Sai
> > > > > >>> mentioned
> > > > > >>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising
> > > given
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us
> a
> > > > > update,
> > > > > >>>> maybe on the PR?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> > > jramos@pivotal.io
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Thanks!!
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nnag@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Hi Juan,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new
> > > > branch
> > > > > >>> has
> > > > > >>>>> not
> > > > > >>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Regards
> > > > > >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> > > > > >> jramos@pivotal.io>
> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Hello team,
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The
> pull
> > > > > >>> request
> > > > > >>>>> has
> > > > > >>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > > > > >>>>>>> Best regards.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > > >>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> great! thanks
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> > > > > >> undergo
> > > > > >>>> all
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in
> > 1.7.0,
> > > > > >>> as
> > > > > >>>>> well
> > > > > >>>>>>> as
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> any related commits
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > > >>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone
> > added
> > > > > >>> the
> > > > > >>>>> 1.8
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We
> > also
> > > > > >>>> need
> > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>> see
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility.
> > If
> > > > > >>> it's
> > > > > >>>>> in
> > > > > >>>>>>> use
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on
> > the
> > > > > >>>>> branch
> > > > > >>>>>> if
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release
> process
> > > > > >> was
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we
> stopped
> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >>>>>> process
> > > > > >>>>>>>> mid
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the
> > current
> > > > > >>>>> develop
> > > > > >>>>>>>> pretty
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that
> says
> > > > > >> its
> > > > > >>>>>> 1.8.0.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Is
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> > > > > >>> (byte)0,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against
> > CN
> > > > > >>> as a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any
> further
> > > > > >>>>> concerns
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> > > > > >>>>> GEODE-5338.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
> > 906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> > > > > >>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current
> > implementation
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >>>>> good
> > > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> needed
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
> > > > > >>>> something
> > > > > >>>>>>> about
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and
> so
> > it
> > > > > >>>>> needs a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> > > > > >>>>> validation.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what
> we
> > > > > >>> should
> > > > > >>>>> do
> > > > > >>>>>>> in a
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
> > > > > >> discussion, I
> > > > > >>>> see
> > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for
> > 1.7:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
> > > > > >>> merged
> > > > > >>>>> PR.
> > > > > >>>>>>> What
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> does
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review
> > Sai's
> > > > > >>>> PRs.
> > > > > >>>>> Is
> > > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> > > > > >>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> > > > > >>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
> > > > > >> historical
> > > > > >>>>> bugs
> > > > > >>>>>>>> fixed.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with
> > latest
> > > > > >>>>>>> build.gradle
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> > > > > >>>> refactoring
> > > > > >>>>> is
> > > > > >>>>>>>> also
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> > > > > >>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> > > > > >>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> > > > > >>>>> (DistributedTest
> > > > > >>>>>>>> OOMEs)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to
> be
> > > > > >>> fixed
> > > > > >>>>>> before
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
> > > > > >>> create a
> > > > > >>>>>>> release
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues
> > with
> > > > > >>> our
> > > > > >>>>>>>> pipeline.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > > > >>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > > > >>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > > > >>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > > > >>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 -
> 16:00
> > > GMT
> > > > > >>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > > > > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > > > >>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > > > > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> > > twitter]
> > > > > >>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > > > >>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image:
> facebook]
> > > > > >>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
> > > plus]
> > > > > >>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > > > >>>>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> > > eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > > > >>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > > > >>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > > > >>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611
> > > > > >>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
> > > > > >>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
> > > > > >>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00
> > GMT
> > > > > >>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > > > > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > > > >>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > > > > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> > twitter]
> > > > > >>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > > > >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > > > > >>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
> > plus]
> > > > > >>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > > > >>>>> <
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> > > eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>.
I think we should delete the windows jobs from the release/1.7 branch. That
will make it clearer that we are intentionally don't care about the results
of those jobs because they are not yet baked.
-Dan
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> +1 for ignoring Windows jobs. As far as I can tell it's not failing due to
> product issues and we don't ship the pipeline to users.
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > I've just fixed GEODE-5661 (Pulse does not work when legacy SSL options
> are
> > used) that I'd also like included. PR is approved and I will merge it in
> > after standup.
> >
> > --Jens
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 3:42 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Develop pipeline is not dependent on Windows jobs and the initial
> reason
> > > being not to slow down the pipeline.
> > > But the WindowsIntegrationTest has not had a consistent green runs and
> is
> > > red either
> > > - due to gradle crashing half-way through (not enough
> memory?)
> > or
> > > - a flaky test
> > >
> > > So should we be considering windows jobs for the release 1.7.0?
> > > Pipeline does not already depend on windows jobs, so we can ignore
> those
> > > jobs for 1.7.0 or make them invisible until they are stable?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:37 PM Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I expect to close PR#2368 for GEODE-5590 without merging it due to
> > > > unexpected test failures in other test categories.
> > > >
> > > > Instead I have PR#2389 (for GEODE 5601) to attain stable test results
> > for
> > > > AcceptanceTests. This is a simpler fix to the problem at the expense
> > of a
> > > > slightly longer runtime for AcceptanceTests (~2min).
> > > >
> > > > Once we have reliable test results we can take additional time to
> > improve
> > > > the build/test process for future releases.
> > > >
> > > > > On Aug 28, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I waiting for a green precheckin for GEODE-5594.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sai
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Thanks for chiming in, Sai! Are you at this point waiting for more
> > > > reviews?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > > >> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to
> > trusting
> > > > >>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to
> add
> > a
> > > > >>> hostname
> > > > >>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default
> > trust
> > > > >> store.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338
> PR.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Sai
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > > amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> > > > >>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/
> geode/pull/2346
> > > > >>>> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338
> >
> > > has
> > > > >>> open
> > > > >>>> PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Does this look right?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now.
> The
> > PR
> > > > >> was
> > > > >>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since.
> Sai
> > > > >>> mentioned
> > > > >>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising
> > given
> > > > the
> > > > >>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a
> > > > update,
> > > > >>>> maybe on the PR?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> > jramos@pivotal.io
> > > >
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks!!
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hi Juan,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new
> > > branch
> > > > >>> has
> > > > >>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Regards
> > > > >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> > > > >> jramos@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Hello team,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
> > > > >>> request
> > > > >>>>> has
> > > > >>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > > > >>>>>>> Best regards.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > >>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> great! thanks
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> > > > >> undergo
> > > > >>>> all
> > > > >>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in
> 1.7.0,
> > > > >>> as
> > > > >>>>> well
> > > > >>>>>>> as
> > > > >>>>>>>>> any related commits
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > >>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone
> added
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>>>> 1.8
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We
> also
> > > > >>>> need
> > > > >>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>> see
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility.
> If
> > > > >>> it's
> > > > >>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>> use
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on
> the
> > > > >>>>> branch
> > > > >>>>>> if
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process
> > > > >> was
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped
> > > > >> that
> > > > >>>>>> process
> > > > >>>>>>>> mid
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the
> current
> > > > >>>>> develop
> > > > >>>>>>>> pretty
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says
> > > > >> its
> > > > >>>>>> 1.8.0.
> > > > >>>>>>>> Is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> > > > >>> (byte)0,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against
> CN
> > > > >>> as a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> > > > >>>>> concerns
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> > > > >>>>> GEODE-5338.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
> 906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> > > > >>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current
> implementation
> > > > >> is
> > > > >>>>> good
> > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> needed
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
> > > > >>>> something
> > > > >>>>>>> about
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so
> it
> > > > >>>>> needs a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> > > > >>>>> validation.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
> > > > >>> should
> > > > >>>>> do
> > > > >>>>>>> in a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
> > > > >> discussion, I
> > > > >>>> see
> > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for
> 1.7:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
> > > > >>> merged
> > > > >>>>> PR.
> > > > >>>>>>> What
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> does
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review
> Sai's
> > > > >>>> PRs.
> > > > >>>>> Is
> > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> > > > >>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> > > > >>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
> > > > >> historical
> > > > >>>>> bugs
> > > > >>>>>>>> fixed.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with
> latest
> > > > >>>>>>> build.gradle
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> > > > >>>> refactoring
> > > > >>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>> also
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> > > > >>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> > > > >>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> > > > >>>>> (DistributedTest
> > > > >>>>>>>> OOMEs)
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
> > > > >>> fixed
> > > > >>>>>> before
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
> > > > >>> create a
> > > > >>>>>>> release
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues
> with
> > > > >>> our
> > > > >>>>>>>> pipeline.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > > >>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > > >>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > > >>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > > >>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > > >>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > > >>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00
> > GMT
> > > > >>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > > > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > > >>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > > > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> > twitter]
> > > > >>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > > >>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > > > >>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
> > plus]
> > > > >>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > > >>>>>>> <
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> > eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> --
> > > > >>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > > >>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > > >>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > > >>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611
> > > > >>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
> > > > >>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
> > > > >>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00
> GMT
> > > > >>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > > > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > > >>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > > > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> twitter]
> > > > >>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > > >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > > > >>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
> plus]
> > > > >>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > > >>>>> <
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> > eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>.
+1 for ignoring Windows jobs. As far as I can tell it's not failing due to
product issues and we don't ship the pipeline to users.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> I've just fixed GEODE-5661 (Pulse does not work when legacy SSL options are
> used) that I'd also like included. PR is approved and I will merge it in
> after standup.
>
> --Jens
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 3:42 PM Sai Boorlagadda <sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Develop pipeline is not dependent on Windows jobs and the initial reason
> > being not to slow down the pipeline.
> > But the WindowsIntegrationTest has not had a consistent green runs and is
> > red either
> > - due to gradle crashing half-way through (not enough memory?)
> or
> > - a flaky test
> >
> > So should we be considering windows jobs for the release 1.7.0?
> > Pipeline does not already depend on windows jobs, so we can ignore those
> > jobs for 1.7.0 or make them invisible until they are stable?
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:37 PM Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > I expect to close PR#2368 for GEODE-5590 without merging it due to
> > > unexpected test failures in other test categories.
> > >
> > > Instead I have PR#2389 (for GEODE 5601) to attain stable test results
> for
> > > AcceptanceTests. This is a simpler fix to the problem at the expense
> of a
> > > slightly longer runtime for AcceptanceTests (~2min).
> > >
> > > Once we have reliable test results we can take additional time to
> improve
> > > the build/test process for future releases.
> > >
> > > > On Aug 28, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> > sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I waiting for a green precheckin for GEODE-5594.
> > > >
> > > > Sai
> > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Thanks for chiming in, Sai! Are you at this point waiting for more
> > > reviews?
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > >> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to
> trusting
> > > >>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add
> a
> > > >>> hostname
> > > >>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default
> trust
> > > >> store.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Sai
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> > > >>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> > > >>>> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338>
> > has
> > > >>> open
> > > >>>> PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Does this look right?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The
> PR
> > > >> was
> > > >>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
> > > >>> mentioned
> > > >>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising
> given
> > > the
> > > >>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a
> > > update,
> > > >>>> maybe on the PR?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> jramos@pivotal.io
> > >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks!!
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hi Juan,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new
> > branch
> > > >>> has
> > > >>>>> not
> > > >>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Regards
> > > >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> > > >> jramos@pivotal.io>
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Hello team,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
> > > >>> request
> > > >>>>> has
> > > >>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > > >>>>>>> Best regards.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > >>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> great! thanks
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> > > >> undergo
> > > >>>> all
> > > >>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
> > > >>> as
> > > >>>>> well
> > > >>>>>>> as
> > > >>>>>>>>> any related commits
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > >>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > >>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>>> 1.8
> > > >>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also
> > > >>>> need
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>> see
> > > >>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If
> > > >>> it's
> > > >>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>> use
> > > >>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> > > >>>>> branch
> > > >>>>>> if
> > > >>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process
> > > >> was
> > > >>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped
> > > >> that
> > > >>>>>> process
> > > >>>>>>>> mid
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> > > >>>>> develop
> > > >>>>>>>> pretty
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > >>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says
> > > >> its
> > > >>>>>> 1.8.0.
> > > >>>>>>>> Is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> > > >>> (byte)0,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN
> > > >>> as a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> > > >>>>> concerns
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> > > >>>>> GEODE-5338.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> > > >>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation
> > > >> is
> > > >>>>> good
> > > >>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> needed
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
> > > >>>> something
> > > >>>>>>> about
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
> > > >>>>> needs a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> > > >>>>> validation.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
> > > >>> should
> > > >>>>> do
> > > >>>>>>> in a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > >>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
> > > >> discussion, I
> > > >>>> see
> > > >>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
> > > >>> merged
> > > >>>>> PR.
> > > >>>>>>> What
> > > >>>>>>>>>> does
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's
> > > >>>> PRs.
> > > >>>>> Is
> > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> > > >>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> > > >>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
> > > >> historical
> > > >>>>> bugs
> > > >>>>>>>> fixed.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
> > > >>>>>>> build.gradle
> > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> > > >>>> refactoring
> > > >>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>> also
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> > > >>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> > > >>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> > > >>>>> (DistributedTest
> > > >>>>>>>> OOMEs)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
> > > >>> fixed
> > > >>>>>> before
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
> > > >>> create a
> > > >>>>>>> release
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with
> > > >>> our
> > > >>>>>>>> pipeline.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > >>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > >>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > >>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > >>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > >>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > >>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00
> GMT
> > > >>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > >>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image:
> twitter]
> > > >>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > >>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > > >>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google
> plus]
> > > >>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > >>>>>>> <
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > >>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > >>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > >>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611
> > > >>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
> > > >>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
> > > >>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> > > >>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > >>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> > > >>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > > >>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> > > >>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > >>>>> <
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_
> eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io>.
I've just fixed GEODE-5661 (Pulse does not work when legacy SSL options are
used) that I'd also like included. PR is approved and I will merge it in
after standup.
--Jens
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 3:42 PM Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Develop pipeline is not dependent on Windows jobs and the initial reason
> being not to slow down the pipeline.
> But the WindowsIntegrationTest has not had a consistent green runs and is
> red either
> - due to gradle crashing half-way through (not enough memory?) or
> - a flaky test
>
> So should we be considering windows jobs for the release 1.7.0?
> Pipeline does not already depend on windows jobs, so we can ignore those
> jobs for 1.7.0 or make them invisible until they are stable?
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:37 PM Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > I expect to close PR#2368 for GEODE-5590 without merging it due to
> > unexpected test failures in other test categories.
> >
> > Instead I have PR#2389 (for GEODE 5601) to attain stable test results for
> > AcceptanceTests. This is a simpler fix to the problem at the expense of a
> > slightly longer runtime for AcceptanceTests (~2min).
> >
> > Once we have reliable test results we can take additional time to improve
> > the build/test process for future releases.
> >
> > > On Aug 28, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I waiting for a green precheckin for GEODE-5594.
> > >
> > > Sai
> > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Alexander Murmann <
> amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thanks for chiming in, Sai! Are you at this point waiting for more
> > reviews?
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> > >> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
> > >>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
> > >>> hostname
> > >>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust
> > >> store.
> > >>>
> > >>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> > >>>
> > >>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
> > >>>
> > >>> Sai
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> > >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> > >>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> > >>>> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338>
> has
> > >>> open
> > >>>> PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Does this look right?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR
> > >> was
> > >>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
> > >>> mentioned
> > >>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given
> > the
> > >>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a
> > update,
> > >>>> maybe on the PR?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jramos@pivotal.io
> >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks!!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi Juan,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new
> branch
> > >>> has
> > >>>>> not
> > >>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Regards
> > >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> > >> jramos@pivotal.io>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Hello team,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
> > >>> request
> > >>>>> has
> > >>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > >>>>>>> Best regards.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > >>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> great! thanks
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> > >> undergo
> > >>>> all
> > >>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
> > >>> as
> > >>>>> well
> > >>>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>>>> any related commits
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Regards
> > >>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > >>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added
> > >>> the
> > >>>>> 1.8
> > >>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also
> > >>>> need
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>> see
> > >>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If
> > >>> it's
> > >>>>> in
> > >>>>>>> use
> > >>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> > >>>>> branch
> > >>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process
> > >> was
> > >>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped
> > >> that
> > >>>>>> process
> > >>>>>>>> mid
> > >>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> > >>>>> develop
> > >>>>>>>> pretty
> > >>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > >>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says
> > >> its
> > >>>>>> 1.8.0.
> > >>>>>>>> Is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> > >>> (byte)0,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN
> > >>> as a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> > >>>>> concerns
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> > >>>>> GEODE-5338.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> > >>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation
> > >> is
> > >>>>> good
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> needed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
> > >>>> something
> > >>>>>>> about
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
> > >>>>> needs a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> > >>>>> validation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
> > >>> should
> > >>>>> do
> > >>>>>>> in a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > >>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
> > >> discussion, I
> > >>>> see
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
> > >>> merged
> > >>>>> PR.
> > >>>>>>> What
> > >>>>>>>>>> does
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's
> > >>>> PRs.
> > >>>>> Is
> > >>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> > >>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> > >>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
> > >> historical
> > >>>>> bugs
> > >>>>>>>> fixed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
> > >>>>>>> build.gradle
> > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> > >>>> refactoring
> > >>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>> also
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> > >>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> > >>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> > >>>>> (DistributedTest
> > >>>>>>>> OOMEs)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
> > >>> fixed
> > >>>>>> before
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
> > >>> create a
> > >>>>>>> release
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with
> > >>> our
> > >>>>>>>> pipeline.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > >>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > >>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > >>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > >>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > >>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> > >>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> > >>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > >>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> > >>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > >>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > >>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> > >>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > >>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > >>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > >>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > >>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611
> > >>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
> > >>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
> > >>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> > >>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > >>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> > >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> > >>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > >>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> > >>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > >>>>> <
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>.
Develop pipeline is not dependent on Windows jobs and the initial reason
being not to slow down the pipeline.
But the WindowsIntegrationTest has not had a consistent green runs and is
red either
- due to gradle crashing half-way through (not enough memory?) or
- a flaky test
So should we be considering windows jobs for the release 1.7.0?
Pipeline does not already depend on windows jobs, so we can ignore those
jobs for 1.7.0 or make them invisible until they are stable?
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:37 PM Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> I expect to close PR#2368 for GEODE-5590 without merging it due to
> unexpected test failures in other test categories.
>
> Instead I have PR#2389 (for GEODE 5601) to attain stable test results for
> AcceptanceTests. This is a simpler fix to the problem at the expense of a
> slightly longer runtime for AcceptanceTests (~2min).
>
> Once we have reliable test results we can take additional time to improve
> the build/test process for future releases.
>
> > On Aug 28, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I waiting for a green precheckin for GEODE-5594.
> >
> > Sai
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for chiming in, Sai! Are you at this point waiting for more
> reviews?
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> >> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
> >>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
> >>> hostname
> >>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust
> >> store.
> >>>
> >>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> >>>
> >>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
> >>>
> >>> Sai
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> amurmann@pivotal.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> >>>>
> >>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> >>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> >>>> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338> has
> >>> open
> >>>> PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does this look right?
> >>>>
> >>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR
> >> was
> >>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
> >>> mentioned
> >>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given
> the
> >>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a
> update,
> >>>> maybe on the PR?
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thanks!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Juan,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch
> >>> has
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> >> jramos@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hello team,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
> >>> request
> >>>>> has
> >>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> >>>>>>> Best regards.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> great! thanks
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> >> undergo
> >>>> all
> >>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
> >>> as
> >>>>> well
> >>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>> any related commits
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added
> >>> the
> >>>>> 1.8
> >>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also
> >>>> need
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If
> >>> it's
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>> use
> >>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> >>>>> branch
> >>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process
> >> was
> >>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
> >>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped
> >> that
> >>>>>> process
> >>>>>>>> mid
> >>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> >>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> >>>>> develop
> >>>>>>>> pretty
> >>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says
> >> its
> >>>>>> 1.8.0.
> >>>>>>>> Is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> >>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> >>> (byte)0,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN
> >>> as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> >>>>> concerns
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> >>>>> GEODE-5338.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> >>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation
> >> is
> >>>>> good
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> needed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
> >>>> something
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
> >>>>> needs a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> >>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
> >>> should
> >>>>> do
> >>>>>>> in a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> >>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
> >> discussion, I
> >>>> see
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
> >>> merged
> >>>>> PR.
> >>>>>>> What
> >>>>>>>>>> does
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's
> >>>> PRs.
> >>>>> Is
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> >>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> >>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
> >> historical
> >>>>> bugs
> >>>>>>>> fixed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
> >>>>>>> build.gradle
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> >>>> refactoring
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> >>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> >>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> >>>>> (DistributedTest
> >>>>>>>> OOMEs)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
> >>> fixed
> >>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
> >>> create a
> >>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with
> >>> our
> >>>>>>>> pipeline.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> >>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> >>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> >>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> >>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> >>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> >>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> >>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> >>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611
> >>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
> >>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
> >>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> >>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> >>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> >>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> >>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >>>>> <
> >>>>
> >>
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io>.
I expect to close PR#2368 for GEODE-5590 without merging it due to unexpected test failures in other test categories.
Instead I have PR#2389 (for GEODE 5601) to attain stable test results for AcceptanceTests. This is a simpler fix to the problem at the expense of a slightly longer runtime for AcceptanceTests (~2min).
Once we have reliable test results we can take additional time to improve the build/test process for future releases.
> On Aug 28, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I waiting for a green precheckin for GEODE-5594.
>
> Sai
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for chiming in, Sai! Are you at this point waiting for more reviews?
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
>>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
>>> hostname
>>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust
>> store.
>>>
>>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
>>>
>>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
>>>
>>> Sai
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
>>>>
>>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
>>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
>>>> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338> has
>>> open
>>>> PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
>>>>
>>>> Does this look right?
>>>>
>>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR
>> was
>>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
>>> mentioned
>>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given the
>>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a update,
>>>> maybe on the PR?
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Juan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch
>>> has
>>>>> not
>>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
>> jramos@pivotal.io>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello team,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
>>> request
>>>>> has
>>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
>>>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> great! thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
>> undergo
>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
>>> as
>>>>> well
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> any related commits
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added
>>> the
>>>>> 1.8
>>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also
>>>> need
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If
>>> it's
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
>>>>> branch
>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process
>> was
>>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
>>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped
>> that
>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>> mid
>>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
>>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
>>>>> develop
>>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>>>>>>>>>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says
>> its
>>>>>> 1.8.0.
>>>>>>>> Is
>>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
>>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
>>> (byte)0,
>>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN
>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
>>>>> concerns
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
>>>>> GEODE-5338.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
>>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
>>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation
>> is
>>>>> good
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> needed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
>>>> something
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
>>>>> needs a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
>>> should
>>>>> do
>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
>>>>>>>>>> amurmann@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
>> discussion, I
>>>> see
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
>>> merged
>>>>> PR.
>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's
>>>> PRs.
>>>>> Is
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
>>>>>> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
>>>>>> gzhou@pivotal.io
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
>> historical
>>>>> bugs
>>>>>>>> fixed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
>>>>>>> build.gradle
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
>>>> refactoring
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
>>>>>>>> abaker@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
>>>>> dsmith@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
>>>>> (DistributedTest
>>>>>>>> OOMEs)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
>>> fixed
>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
>>> create a
>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with
>>> our
>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>>>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
>>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
>>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
>>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
>>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
>>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
>>>>> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611
>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>>>>>
>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
>>>>> <
>>>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>.
I waiting for a green precheckin for GEODE-5594.
Sai
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> Thanks for chiming in, Sai! Are you at this point waiting for more reviews?
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
> > the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
> > hostname
> > validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust
> store.
> >
> > So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> >
> > Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
> >
> > Sai
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> > >
> > > GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> > > https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> > > GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> > > GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338> has
> > open
> > > PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> > >
> > > Does this look right?
> > >
> > > The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR
> was
> > > down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
> > mentioned
> > > yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given the
> > > downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a update,
> > > maybe on the PR?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks!!
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Juan,
> > > > >
> > > > > GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch
> > has
> > > > not
> > > > > yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <
> jramos@pivotal.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello team,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
> > request
> > > > has
> > > > > > been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > > > > > Best regards.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > great! thanks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > > > > > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> undergo
> > > all
> > > > > > > > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
> > as
> > > > well
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > any related commits
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added
> > the
> > > > 1.8
> > > > > > > >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also
> > > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > see
> > > > > > > >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If
> > it's
> > > > in
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> > > > branch
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process
> was
> > > > > > > >> in-progress,
> > > > > > > >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped
> that
> > > > > process
> > > > > > > mid
> > > > > > > >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > > > > > > >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> > > > develop
> > > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > >>> soon.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Regards
> > > > > > > >>> Nabarun
> > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > > > > >> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says
> its
> > > > > 1.8.0.
> > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > >>>> that intentional?
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > > > > > > >>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> > (byte)0,
> > > > > > > >>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN
> > as a
> > > > > > > >>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> > > > concerns
> > > > > > > >>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> > > > GEODE-5338.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Sai
> > > > > > > >>>>> [1]
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> > > > 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > > > > > >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation
> is
> > > > good
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>>> needed
> > > > > > > >>>>>> more coverage.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
> > > something
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > >>>> JDK's
> > > > > > > >>>>>> default implementation of
> > > > > > > >>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
> > > > needs a
> > > > > > > >>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> > > > > > > >>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> > > > validation.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
> > should
> > > > do
> > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > >>>>>> different thread.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Sai
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > > > > > >> amurmann@pivotal.io
> > > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
> discussion, I
> > > see
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> following
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
> > merged
> > > > PR.
> > > > > > What
> > > > > > > >> does
> > > > > > > >>>> it
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> mean?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's
> > > PRs.
> > > > Is
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> correct?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> > > > > jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> > > > > gzhou@pivotal.io
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> +1
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
> historical
> > > > bugs
> > > > > > > fixed.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
> > > > > > build.gradle
> > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> > > refactoring
> > > > is
> > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> success.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> > > > > > > abaker@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> > > > dsmith@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> > > > (DistributedTest
> > > > > > > OOMEs)
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
> > fixed
> > > > > before
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> cutting
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
> > create a
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> branch
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> from
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with
> > our
> > > > > > > pipeline.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > > > > Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > > > > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > > > > Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > > > > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > > > > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > > > > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> > > > > > How to upload artifacts:
> > > > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > > > > How to escalate a ticket:
> > > > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> > > > > > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > > > > > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> > > > > > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > > > > <
> > > > >
> > >
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > > Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > > Office#: +353 21 4238611
> > > > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
> > > > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
> > > > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> > > > How to upload artifacts:
> > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > > How to escalate a ticket:
> > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > > >
> > > > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> > > > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > > > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> > > > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > > <
> > >
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>.
Thanks for chiming in, Sai! Are you at this point waiting for more reviews?
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> wrote:
> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
> hostname
> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust store.
>
> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
>
> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
>
> Sai
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> >
> > GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> > https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> > GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> > GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338> has
> open
> > PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> >
> > Does this look right?
> >
> > The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR was
> > down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
> mentioned
> > yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given the
> > downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a update,
> > maybe on the PR?
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks!!
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Juan,
> > > >
> > > > GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch
> has
> > > not
> > > > yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello team,
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
> request
> > > has
> > > > > been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > > > > Best regards.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > great! thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > > > > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will undergo
> > all
> > > > > > > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
> as
> > > well
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > any related commits
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added
> the
> > > 1.8
> > > > > > >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also
> > need
> > > to
> > > > > see
> > > > > > >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If
> it's
> > > in
> > > > > use
> > > > > > >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> > > branch
> > > > if
> > > > > > >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > > > >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
> > > > > > >> in-progress,
> > > > > > >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that
> > > > process
> > > > > > mid
> > > > > > >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > > > > > >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> > > develop
> > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > >>> soon.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Regards
> > > > > > >>> Nabarun
> > > > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > > > >> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its
> > > > 1.8.0.
> > > > > > Is
> > > > > > >>>> that intentional?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > > > > > >>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> (byte)0,
> > > > > > >>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN
> as a
> > > > > > >>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> > > concerns
> > > > > > >>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> > > GEODE-5338.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Sai
> > > > > > >>>>> [1]
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> > > 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > > > > >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is
> > > good
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >>>> needed
> > > > > > >>>>>> more coverage.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
> > something
> > > > > about
> > > > > > >>>> JDK's
> > > > > > >>>>>> default implementation of
> > > > > > >>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
> > > needs a
> > > > > > >>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> > > > > > >>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> > > validation.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
> should
> > > do
> > > > > in a
> > > > > > >>>>>> different thread.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Sai
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > > > > >> amurmann@pivotal.io
> > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I
> > see
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>>>> following
> > > > > > >>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> > > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> > > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has
> merged
> > > PR.
> > > > > What
> > > > > > >> does
> > > > > > >>>> it
> > > > > > >>>>>>> mean?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's
> > PRs.
> > > Is
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > >>>>>>> correct?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> > > > jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> > > > gzhou@pivotal.io
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> +1
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical
> > > bugs
> > > > > > fixed.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
> > > > > build.gradle
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> > refactoring
> > > is
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> success.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> > > > > > abaker@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> > > dsmith@pivotal.io>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> > > (DistributedTest
> > > > > > OOMEs)
> > > > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
> fixed
> > > > before
> > > > > > >>>>>>> cutting
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
> create a
> > > > > release
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> branch
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> from
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with
> our
> > > > > > pipeline.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > > > Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > > > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > > > Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > > > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > > > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > > > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> > > > > How to upload artifacts:
> > > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > > > How to escalate a ticket:
> > > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > > > >
> > > > > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> > > > > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > > > > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> > > > > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > > > <
> > > >
> > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > Office#: +353 21 4238611
> > > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
> > > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
> > > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> > > How to upload artifacts:
> > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > How to escalate a ticket:
> > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > >
> > > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> > > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> > > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > <
> > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>.
GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
hostname
validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust store.
So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
Sai
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
>
> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338> has open
> PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
>
> Does this look right?
>
> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR was
> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai mentioned
> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given the
> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a update,
> maybe on the PR?
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks!!
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Juan,
> > >
> > > GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch has
> > not
> > > yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Nabarun Nag
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello team,
> > > >
> > > > Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull request
> > has
> > > > been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > > > Best regards.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > great! thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > > > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will undergo
> all
> > > > > > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0, as
> > well
> > > > as
> > > > > > any related commits
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added the
> > 1.8
> > > > > >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also
> need
> > to
> > > > see
> > > > > >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If it's
> > in
> > > > use
> > > > > >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> > branch
> > > if
> > > > > >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > > >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
> > > > > >> in-progress,
> > > > > >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that
> > > process
> > > > > mid
> > > > > >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > > > > >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> > develop
> > > > > pretty
> > > > > >>> soon.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Regards
> > > > > >>> Nabarun
> > > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > > >> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its
> > > 1.8.0.
> > > > > Is
> > > > > >>>> that intentional?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > > > > >>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8, (byte)0,
> > > > > >>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
> > > > > >>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> > concerns
> > > > > >>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> > GEODE-5338.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Sai
> > > > > >>>>> [1]
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> > 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > > > >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is
> > good
> > > > and
> > > > > >>>> needed
> > > > > >>>>>> more coverage.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
> something
> > > > about
> > > > > >>>> JDK's
> > > > > >>>>>> default implementation of
> > > > > >>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
> > needs a
> > > > > >>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> > > > > >>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> > validation.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should
> > do
> > > > in a
> > > > > >>>>>> different thread.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Sai
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > > > >> amurmann@pivotal.io
> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I
> see
> > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>> following
> > > > > >>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged
> > PR.
> > > > What
> > > > > >> does
> > > > > >>>> it
> > > > > >>>>>>> mean?
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's
> PRs.
> > Is
> > > > > that
> > > > > >>>>>>> correct?
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> > > jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> > > gzhou@pivotal.io
> > > > >
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> +1
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical
> > bugs
> > > > > fixed.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
> > > > build.gradle
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> refactoring
> > is
> > > > > also
> > > > > >>>>>>>> success.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> > > > > abaker@pivotal.io>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> > dsmith@pivotal.io>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> > (DistributedTest
> > > > > OOMEs)
> > > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed
> > > before
> > > > > >>>>>>> cutting
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a
> > > > release
> > > > > >>>>>>>> branch
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> from
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with our
> > > > > pipeline.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > > Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > > Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> > > > How to upload artifacts:
> > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > > How to escalate a ticket:
> > > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > > >
> > > > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> > > > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > > > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> > > > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > > <
> > >
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > Office#: +353 21 4238611
> > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
> > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
> > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> > How to upload artifacts:
> > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > How to escalate a ticket:
> > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >
> > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > <
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>.
Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
GEODE-5338 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
Does this look right?
The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR was
down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai mentioned
yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given the
downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a update,
maybe on the PR?
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Thanks!!
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Juan,
> >
> > GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch has
> not
> > yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> >
> > Regards
> > Nabarun Nag
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello team,
> > >
> > > Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull request
> has
> > > been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > > Best regards.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > great! thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will undergo all
> > > > > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0, as
> well
> > > as
> > > > > any related commits
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added the
> 1.8
> > > > >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also need
> to
> > > see
> > > > >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If it's
> in
> > > use
> > > > >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> branch
> > if
> > > > >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
> > > > >> in-progress,
> > > > >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that
> > process
> > > > mid
> > > > >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > > > >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> develop
> > > > pretty
> > > > >>> soon.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Regards
> > > > >>> Nabarun
> > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > > >> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its
> > 1.8.0.
> > > > Is
> > > > >>>> that intentional?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > > > >>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8, (byte)0,
> > > > >>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > > > >>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
> > > > >>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> concerns
> > > > >>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> GEODE-5338.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Sai
> > > > >>>>> [1]
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > > > >>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > > >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is
> good
> > > and
> > > > >>>> needed
> > > > >>>>>> more coverage.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something
> > > about
> > > > >>>> JDK's
> > > > >>>>>> default implementation of
> > > > >>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
> needs a
> > > > >>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> > > > >>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> validation.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should
> do
> > > in a
> > > > >>>>>> different thread.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Sai
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > > >> amurmann@pivotal.io
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see
> > the
> > > > >>>>>>> following
> > > > >>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged
> PR.
> > > What
> > > > >> does
> > > > >>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>> mean?
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs.
> Is
> > > > that
> > > > >>>>>>> correct?
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> > jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> > gzhou@pivotal.io
> > > >
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>> +1
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical
> bugs
> > > > fixed.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
> > > build.gradle
> > > > >> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring
> is
> > > > also
> > > > >>>>>>>> success.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> > > > abaker@pivotal.io>
> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> dsmith@pivotal.io>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> (DistributedTest
> > > > OOMEs)
> > > > >>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed
> > before
> > > > >>>>>>> cutting
> > > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a
> > > release
> > > > >>>>>>>> branch
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> from
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with our
> > > > pipeline.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > > Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > > Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> > > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> > > How to upload artifacts:
> > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > > How to escalate a ticket:
> > > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> > >
> > > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> > > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> > > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > > <
> > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> Office#: +353 21 4238611
> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> How to upload artifacts:
> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> How to escalate a ticket:
> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>
> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>.
Thanks!!
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Juan,
>
> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch has not
> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
>
> Regards
> Nabarun Nag
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello team,
> >
> > Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull request has
> > been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> > Best regards.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > great! thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will undergo all
> > > > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > > >
> > > > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0, as well
> > as
> > > > any related commits
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Nabarun Nag
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added the 1.8
> > > >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also need to
> > see
> > > >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If it's in
> > use
> > > >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the branch
> if
> > > >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > > >>
> > > >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
> > > >> in-progress,
> > > >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that
> process
> > > mid
> > > >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > > >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current develop
> > > pretty
> > > >>> soon.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Regards
> > > >>> Nabarun
> > > >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > > >> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its
> 1.8.0.
> > > Is
> > > >>>> that intentional?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > > >>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8, (byte)0,
> > > >>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > > >>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
> > > >>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further concerns
> > > >>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with GEODE-5338.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Sai
> > > >>>>> [1]
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > > >>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > > >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is good
> > and
> > > >>>> needed
> > > >>>>>> more coverage.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something
> > about
> > > >>>> JDK's
> > > >>>>>> default implementation of
> > > >>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it needs a
> > > >>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> > > >>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname validation.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should do
> > in a
> > > >>>>>> different thread.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Sai
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > > >> amurmann@pivotal.io
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see
> the
> > > >>>>>>> following
> > > >>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged PR.
> > What
> > > >> does
> > > >>>> it
> > > >>>>>>> mean?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is
> > > that
> > > >>>>>>> correct?
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> jdeppe@pivotal.io>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> gzhou@pivotal.io
> > >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> +1
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs
> > > fixed.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
> > build.gradle
> > > >> and
> > > >>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is
> > > also
> > > >>>>>>>> success.
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> > > abaker@pivotal.io>
> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest
> > > OOMEs)
> > > >>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed
> before
> > > >>>>>>> cutting
> > > >>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a
> > release
> > > >>>>>>>> branch
> > > >>>>>>>>>> from
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with our
> > > pipeline.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> > Senior Technical Support Engineer
> > Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> > Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> > Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> > After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> > Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> > How to upload artifacts:
> > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> > How to escalate a ticket:
> > https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >
> > [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> > <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> > <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> > <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> > <
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl>
> >
>
--
Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
Senior Technical Support Engineer
Email: jramos@pivotal.io
Office#: +353 21 4238611
Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
How to upload artifacts:
https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
How to escalate a ticket:
https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
[image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
<https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
<https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
<https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
<https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
Hi Juan,
GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch has not
yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
Regards
Nabarun Nag
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Hello team,
>
> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull request has
> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> Best regards.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <bs...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > great! thanks
> >
> >
> > On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will undergo all
> > > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> > >
> > > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0, as well
> as
> > > any related commits
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Nabarun Nag
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added the 1.8
> > >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also need to
> see
> > >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If it's in
> use
> > >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the branch if
> > >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> > >>
> > >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
> > >> in-progress,
> > >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that process
> > mid
> > >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> > >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current develop
> > pretty
> > >>> soon.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards
> > >>> Nabarun
> > >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> > >> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its 1.8.0.
> > Is
> > >>>> that intentional?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> > >>>>
> > >>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> > >>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8, (byte)0,
> > >>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > >>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
> > >>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further concerns
> > >>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with GEODE-5338.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Sai
> > >>>>> [1]
> > >>>>>
> > >>
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> > >>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> > >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is good
> and
> > >>>> needed
> > >>>>>> more coverage.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something
> about
> > >>>> JDK's
> > >>>>>> default implementation of
> > >>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it needs a
> > >>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> > >>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname validation.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should do
> in a
> > >>>>>> different thread.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Sai
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> > >> amurmann@pivotal.io
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the
> > >>>>>>> following
> > >>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> > >>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged PR.
> What
> > >> does
> > >>>> it
> > >>>>>>> mean?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is
> > that
> > >>>>>>> correct?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <gzhou@pivotal.io
> >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> +1
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs
> > fixed.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
> build.gradle
> > >> and
> > >>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is
> > also
> > >>>>>>>> success.
> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> > abaker@pivotal.io>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest
> > OOMEs)
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before
> > >>>>>>> cutting
> > >>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a
> release
> > >>>>>>>> branch
> > >>>>>>>>>> from
> > >>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with our
> > pipeline.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> > >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> Email: jramos@pivotal.io
> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> How to upload artifacts:
> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> How to escalate a ticket:
> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
>
> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Juan JosΓ© Ramos <jr...@pivotal.io>.
Hello team,
Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull request has
been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
Best regards.
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <bs...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> great! thanks
>
>
> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will undergo all
> > compatibility and upgrade tests.
> >
> > The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0, as well as
> > any related commits
> >
> > Regards
> > Nabarun Nag
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <bschuchardt@pivotal.io
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added the 1.8
> >> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also need to see
> >> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If it's in use
> >> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the branch if
> >> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> >>
> >> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
> >> in-progress,
> >>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that process
> mid
> >>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> >>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current develop
> pretty
> >>> soon.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Nabarun
> >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its 1.8.0.
> Is
> >>>> that intentional?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> >>>>
> >>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> >>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8, (byte)0,
> >>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> >>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
> >>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further concerns
> >>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with GEODE-5338.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sai
> >>>>> [1]
> >>>>>
> >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is good and
> >>>> needed
> >>>>>> more coverage.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something about
> >>>> JDK's
> >>>>>> default implementation of
> >>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it needs a
> >>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> >>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname validation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should do in a
> >>>>>> different thread.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sai
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> >> amurmann@pivotal.io
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the
> >>>>>>> following
> >>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> >>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> >>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged PR. What
> >> does
> >>>> it
> >>>>>>> mean?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is
> that
> >>>>>>> correct?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs
> fixed.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle
> >> and
> >>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is
> also
> >>>>>>>> success.
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> abaker@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest
> OOMEs)
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before
> >>>>>>> cutting
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release
> >>>>>>>> branch
> >>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with our
> pipeline.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> >>
>
>
--
Juan JosΓ© Ramos Cassella
Senior Technical Support Engineer
Email: jramos@pivotal.io
Office#: +353 21 4238611
Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
How to upload artifacts:
https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
How to escalate a ticket:
https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
[image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
<https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
<https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
<https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
<https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Bruce Schuchardt <bs...@pivotal.io>.
great!Β thanks
On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will undergo all
> compatibility and upgrade tests.
>
> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0, as well as
> any related commits
>
> Regards
> Nabarun Nag
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <bs...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added the 1.8
>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also need to see
>> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If it's in use
>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the branch if
>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
>>
>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
>> in-progress,
>>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that process mid
>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current develop pretty
>>> soon.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Nabarun
>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
>> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its 1.8.0. Is
>>>> that intentional?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
>>>>
>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8, (byte)0,
>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further concerns
>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
>>>>>
>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with GEODE-5338.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sai
>>>>> [1]
>>>>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
>>>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is good and
>>>> needed
>>>>>> more coverage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something about
>>>> JDK's
>>>>>> default implementation of
>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it needs a
>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname validation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should do in a
>>>>>> different thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sai
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
>> amurmann@pivotal.io
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the
>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged PR. What
>> does
>>>> it
>>>>>>> mean?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is that
>>>>>>> correct?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs fixed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle
>> and
>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is also
>>>>>>>> success.
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest OOMEs)
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before
>>>>>>> cutting
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release
>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will undergo all
compatibility and upgrade tests.
The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0, as well as
any related commits
Regards
Nabarun Nag
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <bs...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added the 1.8
> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also need to see
> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If it's in use
> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the branch if
> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
>
> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> > @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was
> in-progress,
> > and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that process mid
> > way. This happened in May 2018.
> > We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current develop pretty
> > soon.
> >
> > Regards
> > Nabarun
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> bschuchardt@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its 1.8.0. Is
> >> that intentional?
> >>
> >>
> >> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> >>
> >> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> >> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8, (byte)0,
> >> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> >>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
> >>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further concerns
> >>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> >>>
> >>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with GEODE-5338.
> >>>
> >>> Sai
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> >>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is good and
> >> needed
> >>>> more coverage.
> >>>>
> >>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something about
> >> JDK's
> >>>> default implementation of
> >>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it needs a
> >>>> rethought. It could result in
> >>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname validation.
> >>>>
> >>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should do in a
> >>>> different thread.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sai
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> amurmann@pivotal.io
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the
> >>>>> following
> >>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> >>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> >>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged PR. What
> does
> >> it
> >>>>> mean?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is that
> >>>>> correct?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs fixed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle
> and
> >>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is also
> >>>>>> success.
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Anthony
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest OOMEs)
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before
> >>>>> cutting
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release
> >>>>>> branch
> >>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -Dan
> >>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Bruce Schuchardt <bs...@pivotal.io>.
I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase.Β Someone added the 1.8
version to Version.java and we need to revert that.Β We also need to see
if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility.Β If it's in use
those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the branch if
they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was in-progress,
> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that process mid
> way. This happened in May 2018.
> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current develop pretty
> soon.
>
> Regards
> Nabarun
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <bs...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its 1.8.0. Is
>> that intentional?
>>
>>
>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
>>
>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8, (byte)0,
>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
>>
>>
>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further concerns
>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
>>>
>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with GEODE-5338.
>>>
>>> Sai
>>> [1]
>>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is good and
>> needed
>>>> more coverage.
>>>>
>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something about
>> JDK's
>>>> default implementation of
>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it needs a
>>>> rethought. It could result in
>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname validation.
>>>>
>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should do in a
>>>> different thread.
>>>>
>>>> Sai
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <amurmann@pivotal.io
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the
>>>>> following
>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
>>>>>
>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged PR. What does
>> it
>>>>> mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is that
>>>>> correct?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs fixed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle and
>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is also
>>>>>> success.
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest OOMEs)
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before
>>>>> cutting
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release
>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Dan
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@pivotal.io>.
Hi Geode Developers,
From the discussion in this email thread we are waiting on couple of GEODE
JIRAs to be resolved to continue with 1.7.0 release process.
GEODE-5615 - resolved.
GEODE-5601 - In-progress [DanSmith / Kenneth Howe ]
GEODE-5594 - Open [Sai Boorlagadda]
GEODE-5338 - Open [Sai Boorlagadda]
GEODE-5619 - Resolved
Once these tickets are marked resolved we will start with the 1.7.0 release
process.
Also, all tickets marked as closed or resolved as 1.8.0 fix version have
been marked as 1.7.0. Please continue using the fix version as 1.7.0 till
we send out an email regarding the creation of the new release branch.
Below tickets were changed from 1.8.0 to 1.7.0
GEODE-5627
GEODE-5583
GEODE-5582
GEODE-5575
GEODE-5554
GEODE-5549
GEODE-5530
GEODE-5528
GEODE-5520
GEODE-5510
GEODE-5503
GEODE-5499
GEODE-5495
GEODE-5493
GEODE-5489
GEODE-5488
GEODE-5480
GEODE-5477
GEODE-5473
GEODE-5471
GEODE-5470
GEODE-5461
GEODE-5460
GEODE-5453
GEODE-5447
GEODE-5439
GEODE-5438
GEODE-5436
GEODE-5435
GEODE-5432
GEODE-5426
GEODE-5420
GEODE-5416
GEODE-5408
GEODE-5387
GEODE-5383
GEODE-5376
GEODE-5371
GEODE-5363
GEODE-5361
GEODE-5360
GEODE-5360
GEODE-5351
GEODE-5350
GEODE-5349
GEODE-5333
GEODE-5330
GEODE-5325
GEODE-5323
GEODE-5320
GEODE-5319
GEODE-5317
GEODE-5312
GEODE-5311
GEODE-5310
GEODE-5307
GEODE-5306
GEODE-5305
GEODE-5302
GEODE-5300
GEODE-5298
GEODE-5296
GEODE-5292
GEODE-5290
GEODE-5287
GEODE-5283
GEODE-5281
GEODE-5278
GEODE-5277
GEODE-5276
GEODE-5274
GEODE-5273
GEODE-5272
GEODE-5270
GEODE-5269
GEODE-5267
GEODE-5265
GEODE-5255
GEODE-5249
GEODE-5237
GEODE-5223
GEODE-5220
GEODE-5186
GEODE-5157
GEODE-4965
GEODE-4791
GEODE-4726
GEODE-4614
GEODE-4593
GEODE-4336
GEODE-3530
GEODE-3505
GEODE-1866
GEODE-1357
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:11 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was in-progress,
> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that process mid
> way. This happened in May 2018.
> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current develop pretty
> soon.
>
> Regards
> Nabarun
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <bs...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its 1.8.0. Is
>> that intentional?
>>
>>
>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
>>
>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8, (byte)0,
>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
>>
>>
>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
>> > After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
>> > fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further concerns
>> > with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
>> >
>> > Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with GEODE-5338.
>> >
>> > Sai
>> > [1]
>> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
>> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is good and
>> needed
>> >> more coverage.
>> >>
>> >> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something about
>> JDK's
>> >> default implementation of
>> >> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it needs a
>> >> rethought. It could result in
>> >> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname validation.
>> >>
>> >> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should do in a
>> >> different thread.
>> >>
>> >> Sai
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
>> amurmann@pivotal.io>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the
>> >>> following
>> >>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
>> >>>
>> >>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
>> >>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
>> >>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>> >>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>> >>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged PR. What
>> does it
>> >>> mean?
>> >>>
>> >>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>> >>>
>> >>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is that
>> >>> correct?
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> +1
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs fixed.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle
>> and
>> >>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is also
>> >>>> success.
>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> I most definitely agree!
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Anthony
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest OOMEs)
>> >>> and
>> >>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before
>> >>> cutting
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release
>> >>>> branch
>> >>>>>> from
>> >>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> -Dan
>> >>>>>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
@Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process was in-progress,
and a release branch was already created. But we stopped that process mid
way. This happened in May 2018.
We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current develop pretty
soon.
Regards
Nabarun
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <bs...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its 1.8.0. Is
> that intentional?
>
>
> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
>
> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8, (byte)0,
> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
>
>
> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> > After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
> > fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further concerns
> > with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> >
> > Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with GEODE-5338.
> >
> > Sai
> > [1]
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is good and
> needed
> >> more coverage.
> >>
> >> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something about
> JDK's
> >> default implementation of
> >> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it needs a
> >> rethought. It could result in
> >> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname validation.
> >>
> >> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should do in a
> >> different thread.
> >>
> >> Sai
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <amurmann@pivotal.io
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the
> >>> following
> >>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> >>>
> >>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> >>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> >>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged PR. What does
> it
> >>> mean?
> >>>
> >>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> >>>
> >>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is that
> >>> correct?
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs fixed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle and
> >>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is also
> >>>> success.
> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anthony
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest OOMEs)
> >>> and
> >>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before
> >>> cutting
> >>>>> the
> >>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release
> >>>> branch
> >>>>>> from
> >>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Dan
> >>>>>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Bruce Schuchardt <bs...@pivotal.io>.
It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says its 1.8.0.Β Is
that intentional?
private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8, (byte)0, (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further concerns
> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
>
> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with GEODE-5338.
>
> Sai
> [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is good and needed
>> more coverage.
>>
>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something about JDK's
>> default implementation of
>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it needs a
>> rethought. It could result in
>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname validation.
>>
>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should do in a
>> different thread.
>>
>> Sai
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the
>>> following
>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
>>>
>>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
>>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
>>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged PR. What does it
>>> mean?
>>>
>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>>>
>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is that
>>> correct?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle and
>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is also
>>>> success.
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest OOMEs)
>>> and
>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before
>>> cutting
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release
>>>> branch
>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Dan
>>>>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
I am about to change the fixed version in GEODE JIRAs to 1.7.0 for those
tickets which are marked closed or resolved with 1.8.0 as the fix version.
Please do let me know if there are any concerns.
The new release branch has not been created yet.
Regards
Nabarun Nag
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:17 AM Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further concerns
> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
>
> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with GEODE-5338.
>
> Sai
> [1]
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <sai.boorlagadda@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is good and
> needed
> > more coverage.
> >
> > While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something about JDK's
> > default implementation of
> > hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it needs a
> > rethought. It could result in
> > implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname validation.
> >
> > I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should do in a
> > different thread.
> >
> > Sai
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the
> >> following
> >> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> >>
> >> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> >> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> >> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> >> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged PR. What does it
> >> mean?
> >>
> >> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> >>
> >> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is that
> >> correct?
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > +1
> >> > >
> >> > > The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs fixed.
> >> > >
> >> > > Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle
> and
> >> > > recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is also
> >> > success.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I most definitely agree!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Anthony
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest
> OOMEs)
> >> and
> >> > > > > GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before
> >> cutting
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release
> >> > branch
> >> > > > from
> >> > > > > a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -Dan
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>.
After reading through the weekend, validating against CN as a
fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further concerns
with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with GEODE-5338.
Sai
[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is good and needed
> more coverage.
>
> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something about JDK's
> default implementation of
> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it needs a
> rethought. It could result in
> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname validation.
>
> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should do in a
> different thread.
>
> Sai
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
>> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the
>> following
>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
>>
>> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
>> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
>> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
>> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged PR. What does it
>> mean?
>>
>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>>
>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is that
>> correct?
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>>
>> > I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> >
>> > > +1
>> > >
>> > > The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs fixed.
>> > >
>> > > Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle and
>> > > recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is also
>> > success.
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I most definitely agree!
>> > > >
>> > > > Anthony
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest OOMEs)
>> and
>> > > > > GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before
>> cutting
>> > > the
>> > > > > new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release
>> > branch
>> > > > from
>> > > > > a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Dan
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>.
Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation is good and needed
more coverage.
While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found something about JDK's
default implementation of
hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it needs a rethought.
It could result in
implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname validation.
I will send out details and seek to advise on what we should do in a
different thread.
Sai
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the following
> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
>
> - GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
> - GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
> - GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> - GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
> - GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged PR. What does it
> mean?
>
> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
>
> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is that
> correct?
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs fixed.
> > >
> > > Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle and
> > > recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is also
> > success.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I most definitely agree!
> > > >
> > > > Anthony
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest OOMEs)
> and
> > > > > GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before
> cutting
> > > the
> > > > > new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release
> > branch
> > > > from
> > > > > a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Dan
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>.
To summarize where we are right now in this discussion, I see the following
tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
- GEODE-5615 - β
resolved
- GEODE-5601 - πββοΈ in progress
- GEODE-5594 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
- GEODE-5338 - πββοΈ waiting for PR review
- GEODE-5619 - π in progress in JIRA but has merged PR. What does it
mean?
Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's PRs. Is that
correct?
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs fixed.
> >
> > Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle and
> > recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is also
> success.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I most definitely agree!
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest OOMEs) and
> > > > GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before cutting
> > the
> > > > new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release
> branch
> > > from
> > > > a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline.
> > > >
> > > > -Dan
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Jens Deppe <jd...@pivotal.io>.
I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> +1
>
> The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs fixed.
>
> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle and
> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is also success.
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > I most definitely agree!
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest OOMEs) and
> > > GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before cutting
> the
> > > new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release branch
> > from
> > > a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline.
> > >
> > > -Dan
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Xiaojian Zhou <gz...@pivotal.io>.
+1
The release will be a great one with so many historical bugs fixed.
Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest build.gradle and
recent moved test packages, it worked. So this refactoring is also success.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> I most definitely agree!
>
> Anthony
>
>
> > On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest OOMEs) and
> > GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before cutting the
> > new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release branch
> from
> > a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline.
> >
> > -Dan
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Anthony Baker <ab...@pivotal.io>.
I most definitely agree!
Anthony
> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest OOMEs) and
> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before cutting the
> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release branch from
> a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline.
>
> -Dan
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Sai Boorlagadda <sa...@gmail.com>.
If not late, I would also like to include GEODE-5594 (enabling hostname
verification)
and GEODE-5338 (using the default SSL context) into 1.7.0.
PRs for both are open and currently up for review.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:26 PM Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest OOMEs) and
> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before cutting the
> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release branch from
> a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I will wait for a day to give all developers sometime to commit any new
> > fixes into develop that is needed in 1.7.0. Please do let me know if
> there
> > is any concern.
> >
> > Regards
> > Nabarun Nag
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 12:42 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah , I can continue with the release manager tasks. My understanding
> > > from Dan's email is that every JIRA that was closed as 1.8 needs to be
> > > changed to 1.7 after we rebase develop over release/1.7 branch.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Nabarun Nag
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:57 AM Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1 to updating the 1.7 branch.
> > >>
> > >> There is also a 1.8 version in JIRA, and I think a bunch of things are
> > >> marked as resolved in 1.8. So if you update the release branch you
> > should
> > >> probably update the fixed version on all these issues.
> > >>
> > >> -Dan
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Alexander Murmann <
> > amurmann@pivotal.io>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi everyone!
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > We cut this release branch 3 months ago and then the release got
> > >> stalled.
> > >> > Since then weβve added another 432 commits to develop. We also have
> 83
> > >> > resolved Jira tickets marked as 1.8 and another 91 Jira tickets that
> > are
> > >> > labeled as 1.7, but were resolved after the 1.7 branch was cut π.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Given all the above, I am proposing to update the release/1.7.0
> branch
> > >> to
> > >> > include everything thatβs currently on develop. What are everyone's
> > >> > thoughts on this?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Nabarun, you previously volunteered to be the release manager for
> 1.7.
> > >> > Would you still be willing to fill that role if we decide to pick
> this
> > >> back
> > >> > up?
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > +1
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:29 AM Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > +1
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > Mike Stolz
> > >> > > > Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Lead
> > >> > > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 <(631)%20835-4771>
> > >> > > > Download the GemFire book here.
> > >> > > > <
> > >> > > > https://content.pivotal.io/ebooks/scaling-data-services-
> > >> > > with-pivotal-gemfire
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Barbara Pruijn <
> > >> bpruijn@pivotal.io>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > +1
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On May 23, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Joey McAllister <
> > >> > jmcallister@pivotal.io
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > +1 for including these. They are documentation-only changes
> > that
> > >> > are
> > >> > > > > > applicable to 1.7.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:24 AM Karen Miller <
> > >> kmiller@apache.org>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >> Geode devs, I think that my merges of commits for
> GEODE-5071
> > >> and
> > >> > > > > >> GEODE-5242 really
> > >> > > > > >> belong in Geode 1.7. They just missed making it in before
> > the
> > >> > > release
> > >> > > > > >> branch was cut. I'm going to
> > >> > > > > >> cherry pick them into the 1.7 release branch. If anyone
> > >> disagrees
> > >> > > > with
> > >> > > > > >> this, let's discuss why, and we
> > >> > > > > >> can always revert the commits. Thanks!
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Nabarun Nag <
> > nnag@apache.org>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >>> Hello Geode dev community,
> > >> > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >>> We have created a release branch for Apache Geode 1.7.0 -
> > >> > > > > "release/1.7.0"
> > >> > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >>> Please do review and raise any issue with the release
> > branch.
> > >> > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >>> If no concerns are raised we will start with voting for
> > >> release
> > >> > > > > candidate
> > >> > > > > >>> within a week.
> > >> > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >>> Regards
> > >> > > > > >>> Nabarun Nag
> > >> > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > >>
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>.
I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615 (DistributedTest OOMEs) and
GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be fixed before cutting the
new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't create a release branch from
a point where we have these systematic issues with our pipeline.
-Dan
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> I will wait for a day to give all developers sometime to commit any new
> fixes into develop that is needed in 1.7.0. Please do let me know if there
> is any concern.
>
> Regards
> Nabarun Nag
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 12:42 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Yeah , I can continue with the release manager tasks. My understanding
> > from Dan's email is that every JIRA that was closed as 1.8 needs to be
> > changed to 1.7 after we rebase develop over release/1.7 branch.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Nabarun Nag
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:57 AM Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 to updating the 1.7 branch.
> >>
> >> There is also a 1.8 version in JIRA, and I think a bunch of things are
> >> marked as resolved in 1.8. So if you update the release branch you
> should
> >> probably update the fixed version on all these issues.
> >>
> >> -Dan
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Alexander Murmann <
> amurmann@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi everyone!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > We cut this release branch 3 months ago and then the release got
> >> stalled.
> >> > Since then weβve added another 432 commits to develop. We also have 83
> >> > resolved Jira tickets marked as 1.8 and another 91 Jira tickets that
> are
> >> > labeled as 1.7, but were resolved after the 1.7 branch was cut π.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Given all the above, I am proposing to update the release/1.7.0 branch
> >> to
> >> > include everything thatβs currently on develop. What are everyone's
> >> > thoughts on this?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Nabarun, you previously volunteered to be the release manager for 1.7.
> >> > Would you still be willing to fill that role if we decide to pick this
> >> back
> >> > up?
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > +1
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:29 AM Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > +1
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Mike Stolz
> >> > > > Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Lead
> >> > > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 <(631)%20835-4771>
> >> > > > Download the GemFire book here.
> >> > > > <
> >> > > > https://content.pivotal.io/ebooks/scaling-data-services-
> >> > > with-pivotal-gemfire
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Barbara Pruijn <
> >> bpruijn@pivotal.io>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > +1
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > On May 23, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Joey McAllister <
> >> > jmcallister@pivotal.io
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > +1 for including these. They are documentation-only changes
> that
> >> > are
> >> > > > > > applicable to 1.7.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:24 AM Karen Miller <
> >> kmiller@apache.org>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >> Geode devs, I think that my merges of commits for GEODE-5071
> >> and
> >> > > > > >> GEODE-5242 really
> >> > > > > >> belong in Geode 1.7. They just missed making it in before
> the
> >> > > release
> >> > > > > >> branch was cut. I'm going to
> >> > > > > >> cherry pick them into the 1.7 release branch. If anyone
> >> disagrees
> >> > > > with
> >> > > > > >> this, let's discuss why, and we
> >> > > > > >> can always revert the commits. Thanks!
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Nabarun Nag <
> nnag@apache.org>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >>> Hello Geode dev community,
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> We have created a release branch for Apache Geode 1.7.0 -
> >> > > > > "release/1.7.0"
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> Please do review and raise any issue with the release
> branch.
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> If no concerns are raised we will start with voting for
> >> release
> >> > > > > candidate
> >> > > > > >>> within a week.
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>> Regards
> >> > > > > >>> Nabarun Nag
> >> > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
I will wait for a day to give all developers sometime to commit any new
fixes into develop that is needed in 1.7.0. Please do let me know if there
is any concern.
Regards
Nabarun Nag
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 12:42 PM Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yeah , I can continue with the release manager tasks. My understanding
> from Dan's email is that every JIRA that was closed as 1.8 needs to be
> changed to 1.7 after we rebase develop over release/1.7 branch.
>
>
> Regards
> Nabarun Nag
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:57 AM Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
>> +1 to updating the 1.7 branch.
>>
>> There is also a 1.8 version in JIRA, and I think a bunch of things are
>> marked as resolved in 1.8. So if you update the release branch you should
>> probably update the fixed version on all these issues.
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi everyone!
>> >
>> >
>> > We cut this release branch 3 months ago and then the release got
>> stalled.
>> > Since then weβve added another 432 commits to develop. We also have 83
>> > resolved Jira tickets marked as 1.8 and another 91 Jira tickets that are
>> > labeled as 1.7, but were resolved after the 1.7 branch was cut π.
>> >
>> >
>> > Given all the above, I am proposing to update the release/1.7.0 branch
>> to
>> > include everything thatβs currently on develop. What are everyone's
>> > thoughts on this?
>> >
>> >
>> > Nabarun, you previously volunteered to be the release manager for 1.7.
>> > Would you still be willing to fill that role if we decide to pick this
>> back
>> > up?
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > +1
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:29 AM Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > +1
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Mike Stolz
>> > > > Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Lead
>> > > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 <(631)%20835-4771>
>> > > > Download the GemFire book here.
>> > > > <
>> > > > https://content.pivotal.io/ebooks/scaling-data-services-
>> > > with-pivotal-gemfire
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Barbara Pruijn <
>> bpruijn@pivotal.io>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > +1
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > On May 23, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Joey McAllister <
>> > jmcallister@pivotal.io
>> > > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > +1 for including these. They are documentation-only changes that
>> > are
>> > > > > > applicable to 1.7.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:24 AM Karen Miller <
>> kmiller@apache.org>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> Geode devs, I think that my merges of commits for GEODE-5071
>> and
>> > > > > >> GEODE-5242 really
>> > > > > >> belong in Geode 1.7. They just missed making it in before the
>> > > release
>> > > > > >> branch was cut. I'm going to
>> > > > > >> cherry pick them into the 1.7 release branch. If anyone
>> disagrees
>> > > > with
>> > > > > >> this, let's discuss why, and we
>> > > > > >> can always revert the commits. Thanks!
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>> Hello Geode dev community,
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> We have created a release branch for Apache Geode 1.7.0 -
>> > > > > "release/1.7.0"
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Please do review and raise any issue with the release branch.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> If no concerns are raised we will start with voting for
>> release
>> > > > > candidate
>> > > > > >>> within a week.
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Regards
>> > > > > >>> Nabarun Nag
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>.
Yeah , I can continue with the release manager tasks. My understanding from
Dan's email is that every JIRA that was closed as 1.8 needs to be changed
to 1.7 after we rebase develop over release/1.7 branch.
Regards
Nabarun Nag
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:57 AM Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> +1 to updating the 1.7 branch.
>
> There is also a 1.8 version in JIRA, and I think a bunch of things are
> marked as resolved in 1.8. So if you update the release branch you should
> probably update the fixed version on all these issues.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> >
> > We cut this release branch 3 months ago and then the release got stalled.
> > Since then weβve added another 432 commits to develop. We also have 83
> > resolved Jira tickets marked as 1.8 and another 91 Jira tickets that are
> > labeled as 1.7, but were resolved after the 1.7 branch was cut π.
> >
> >
> > Given all the above, I am proposing to update the release/1.7.0 branch to
> > include everything thatβs currently on develop. What are everyone's
> > thoughts on this?
> >
> >
> > Nabarun, you previously volunteered to be the release manager for 1.7.
> > Would you still be willing to fill that role if we decide to pick this
> back
> > up?
> >
> > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:29 AM Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Mike Stolz
> > > > Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Lead
> > > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771 <(631)%20835-4771>
> > > > Download the GemFire book here.
> > > > <
> > > > https://content.pivotal.io/ebooks/scaling-data-services-
> > > with-pivotal-gemfire
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Barbara Pruijn <bpruijn@pivotal.io
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > > On May 23, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Joey McAllister <
> > jmcallister@pivotal.io
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1 for including these. They are documentation-only changes that
> > are
> > > > > > applicable to 1.7.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:24 AM Karen Miller <kmiller@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Geode devs, I think that my merges of commits for GEODE-5071
> and
> > > > > >> GEODE-5242 really
> > > > > >> belong in Geode 1.7. They just missed making it in before the
> > > release
> > > > > >> branch was cut. I'm going to
> > > > > >> cherry pick them into the 1.7 release branch. If anyone
> disagrees
> > > > with
> > > > > >> this, let's discuss why, and we
> > > > > >> can always revert the commits. Thanks!
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Hello Geode dev community,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> We have created a release branch for Apache Geode 1.7.0 -
> > > > > "release/1.7.0"
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Please do review and raise any issue with the release branch.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> If no concerns are raised we will start with voting for release
> > > > > candidate
> > > > > >>> within a week.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Regards
> > > > > >>> Nabarun Nag
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Geode 1.7.0 release branch created
Posted by Dan Smith <ds...@pivotal.io>.
+1 to updating the 1.7 branch.
There is also a 1.8 version in JIRA, and I think a bunch of things are
marked as resolved in 1.8. So if you update the release branch you should
probably update the fixed version on all these issues.
-Dan
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Alexander Murmann <am...@pivotal.io>
wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
>
> We cut this release branch 3 months ago and then the release got stalled.
> Since then weβve added another 432 commits to develop. We also have 83
> resolved Jira tickets marked as 1.8 and another 91 Jira tickets that are
> labeled as 1.7, but were resolved after the 1.7 branch was cut π.
>
>
> Given all the above, I am proposing to update the release/1.7.0 branch to
> include everything thatβs currently on develop. What are everyone's
> thoughts on this?
>
>
> Nabarun, you previously volunteered to be the release manager for 1.7.
> Would you still be willing to fill that role if we decide to pick this back
> up?
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:29 AM Michael Stolz <ms...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mike Stolz
> > > Principal Engineer, GemFire Product Lead
> > > Mobile: +1-631-835-4771
> > > Download the GemFire book here.
> > > <
> > > https://content.pivotal.io/ebooks/scaling-data-services-
> > with-pivotal-gemfire
> > > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Barbara Pruijn <bp...@pivotal.io>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > > On May 23, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Joey McAllister <
> jmcallister@pivotal.io
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 for including these. They are documentation-only changes that
> are
> > > > > applicable to 1.7.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:24 AM Karen Miller <km...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Geode devs, I think that my merges of commits for GEODE-5071 and
> > > > >> GEODE-5242 really
> > > > >> belong in Geode 1.7. They just missed making it in before the
> > release
> > > > >> branch was cut. I'm going to
> > > > >> cherry pick them into the 1.7 release branch. If anyone disagrees
> > > with
> > > > >> this, let's discuss why, and we
> > > > >> can always revert the commits. Thanks!
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Nabarun Nag <nn...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hello Geode dev community,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> We have created a release branch for Apache Geode 1.7.0 -
> > > > "release/1.7.0"
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Please do review and raise any issue with the release branch.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> If no concerns are raised we will start with voting for release
> > > > candidate
> > > > >>> within a week.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Regards
> > > > >>> Nabarun Nag
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>