+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 <jde...@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.boorlaga...@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.boorlaga...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I waiting for a green precheckin for GEODE-5594. > > > > > > > > Sai > > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Alexander Murmann < > > amurm...@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.boorlaga...@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 < > > > amurm...@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 José Ramos < > jra...@pivotal.io > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Thanks!! > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <n...@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 José Ramos < > > > >> jra...@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 < > > > >>>>>> bschucha...@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 < > > > >>>>>>> bschucha...@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 < > > > >>>>>>>>>> bschucha...@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.boorlaga...@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 < > > > >>>>>>>>>> amurm...@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 - ✅ resolved > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - 🏃♀️ in progress > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - 🏃♀️ waiting for PR review > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - 🏃♀️ waiting for PR review > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - 🙄 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 < > > > >>>>>> jde...@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 < > > > >>>>>>>> aba...@pivotal.io> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith < > > > >>>>> dsm...@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 José Ramos Cassella > > > >>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer > > > >>>>>>> Email: jra...@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 José Ramos Cassella > > > >>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer > > > >>>>> Email: jra...@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 > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
