I am planning to cut the1.9 release branch today after merging this PR #3195 which is reverting changes to GEODE-6334 & GEODE-6345.
Is there anything other than that I should be aware of? Here is the list of issues that were requested to be included into 1.9. If there is any plan to merge any of these today let me know and I can cut the branch after that. GEODE-6334 - CachePerfStats operation count stats may wrap to negative values GEODE-6345 - StatSamplerStats jvmPauses stat may wrap to negative value GEODE-6369 - Cache-creation failure after a successful auto-reconnect causes subsequent NPE GEODE-6391 - Event IDs must be included in the PartitioneRegion messages GEODE-6404 - review use of computeIfAbsent across the code base (experimental and dropped) GEODE-6393 - Replace synchronization lock with AtomicReference for InternalLocator - Sai On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:21 PM Sai Boorlagadda <sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't mean blocking a release but the release process (including > cutting the branch). > > > I thought there was a consensus about strictly cutting a > > branch[1] with our new fixed minor release cadence and > > only allow critical fixes. > > > I assumed that any critical fixes that are allowed onto the > > release branch are the ones that are identified on the branch > > after it is cut and not the ones that are already known. > > > Correct me if my understanding is wrong. > > > [1] > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d36a63c3794d13506ecad3d52a2aca938dcf0f8509b61860bbbc50cd@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:00 PM Nabarun Nag <n...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> I could not find any DISCUSS mails about not blocking a release. I may be >> wrong, I apologize for that but could point me to the mail / documentation >> about the release management. >> >> Regards >> Naba >> >> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:52 AM Sai Boorlagadda < >> sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Did we not agreed that we won't be blocking a release to include fixes >> as >> > we are in a fixed release schedule? >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:36 AM Alexander Murmann <amurm...@apache.org >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Usually I am a proponent of cutting a branch and then fixing things on >> > > there where things are more stable. In this case we seem to have a >> large >> > > number of fairly serious concerns. Do we think the cost of putting >> this >> > > many fixes on develop + the release branch out-weights the benefit of >> > less >> > > risk of new issues being introduced? >> > > >> > > Thoughts? >> > > >> > > Thank you, Sai for taking over! >> > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:32 AM Sai Boorlagadda < >> > > sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > I volunteer to be the release manager for 1.9. >> > > > >> > > > Sai >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 7:48 PM Alexander Murmann < >> amurm...@apache.org >> > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > If there are no other takers, I can act as release manager for 1.9 >> > and >> > > > will >> > > > > cut a release branch this week. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 1:50 PM Alexander Murmann < >> > amurm...@apache.org >> > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi everyone! >> > > > > > >> > > > > > February 1st is approaching rapidly which means it's almost >> time to >> > > cut >> > > > > > the 1.9 release. Who is interested in being the release manager >> for >> > > > 1.9? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you! >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
