I've removed the 1.3.0 tag from these items:

GEODE-3563 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3563> SSL socket
handling problems in TCPConduit run
GEODE-3705 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3705> New client
protocol: Implement handshake
GEODE-3637 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3637>
configureClientSSLSocket call can block Acceptor thread




On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io>
wrote:

> Hi All,
> We actually have gone up from 11 to 15 issues tagged for release with 1.3.
> Based on recent activity (or lack there of) and features not related to
> Security, I think we should not wait for the following issues for 1.3: (I
> will remove 1.3 labels for these if there are no concerns in 72 hours)
> GEODE-3563 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3563> SSL socket
> handling problems in TCPConduit run
> GEODE-3521 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3521> Allow region
> set op to bootstrap JTA
> GEODE-3622 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3622> The first
> HeapLRU evictions on large region can consume high amounts of CPU
> GEODE-3705 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3705> New client
> protocol: Implement handshake
> GEODE-3682 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3682> Trace
> displaying incorrect indexes being used
> GEODE-3637 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3637>
> configureClientSSLSocket
> call can block Acceptor thread
>
> Which brings us down to the following 8:
> GEODE-2817 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2817> Have the
> function author determine what permissions the function execution requires
> GEODE-2919 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-2919> Provide
> finer
> grained security
> GEODE-3190 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3190> CI failure:
> org.apache.geode.internal.cache.Bug48182JUnitTest.
> test48182WithRegionDestroy
> GEODE-3495 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3495> Review and
> update dependencies for 1.3.0
> GEODE-3621 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3621> Revert
> breaking changes in SecurityManager
> GEODE-3628 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3628> fix required
> permission for lucene query
> GEODE-3685 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3685> MBean
> wrappers are not always applied correctly
> GEODE-3723 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-3723> Reconsider
> using Optional<String> as the parameter for getRequiredPermissions
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:11 PM Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
> > I took preliminary look and tagged some issues for 1.3.0.
> > Looks like we have 11 issues remaining:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?
> rapidView=92&projectKey=GEODE&view=planning&selectedIssue=
> GEODE-2788&versions=visible&selectedVersion=12340669
> >
> > Please take a look at these issues to see which are not critical to fix
> in
> > 1.3 and also look at issues assigned to you/reported by you to see if
> they
> > must be tagged for 1.3.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:36 AM Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Excellent!  Can you review the open issues currently tagged for 1.3.0 (I
> >> think it’s probably not accurate) and gather consensus on any remaining
> >> changes needed?
> >>
> >> Anthony
> >>
> >> > On Sep 12, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Swapnil Bawaskar <sbawas...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Sound good.
> >> >
> >> > I would like to volunteer to be the release manager.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:24 PM Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >>
> >> >> I think we should begin discussing scope and timeline for the 1.3.0
> >> >> release.  I know we’re still finalizing 1.2.1, but we released 1.2.0
> >> almost
> >> >> two months ago and we’ve fixed almost 200 issues in that time.  IMO,
> we
> >> >> should complete 1.2.1 and then immediately turn around 1.3.0.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thoughts?  Any volunteers for release manager?
> >> >>
> >> >> Anthony
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>

Reply via email to