This has been merged to release/1.10.0.
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:14 AM Dick Cavender <dcaven...@pivotal.io> wrote: > We have 3 plus one votes so we'll merge this as soon as the PR checks > complete. > > -Dick > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:25 AM Blake Bender <bben...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> +1, IMO this really needs to go in. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Blake >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:30 PM Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> >> > My understanding is that this portion of the protocol is determined by >> > instanceof checks, not the ordinal version. The messages from the java >> > client went through a different code path than messages from the native >> > client. So java clients using ordinal 45 still work (that’s why our >> > backwards compatibility tests don’t fail). >> > >> > Anthony >> > >> > >> > > On Sep 12, 2019, at 2:34 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: >> > > >> > > +1 for getting this in 1.10. >> > > >> > > I am curious though - is the native client behaving like an older >> > versions >> > > of the java client, or is this totally unique behavior for the native >> > > client? Is there some integration test that we are missing here? >> > > >> > > -Dan >> > > >> > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:52 AM Michael Oleske <mole...@pivotal.io> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > >> Here is the Pull Request for the cherry pick as requested >> > >> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4049 >> > >> >> > >> -michael >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:28 AM Dick Cavender <dcaven...@pivotal.io >> > >> > >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> Hi Michael, thank you for bringing your concern and fixing this >> issue. >> > >>> >> > >>> Geode's release process dictates a time-based schedule < >> > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Release+Schedule> >> to >> > >> cut >> > >>> release branches. The “critical fixes” rule does allow critical >> fixes >> > to >> > >>> be brought to the release branch by proposal on the dev list, as you >> > have >> > >>> done here. >> > >>> >> > >>> If there is consensus from the Geode community that your proposed >> > change >> > >>> satisfies the “critical fixes” rule, I will be happy to bring it to >> the >> > >>> 1.10.0 release branch. >> > >>> >> > >>> Due to the complexity of this change, could please open a PR against >> > >>> release/1.10.0 containing the exact changes you want to merge? >> > >>> >> > >>> Regards >> > >>> >> > >>> -Dick >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> >> > >> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>>> +1 yes please! >> > >>>> >> > >>>>> On Sep 12, 2019, at 10:11 AM, Michael Oleske <mole...@pivotal.io> >> > >>> wrote: >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Hi Geode Devs! >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> I'd like to propose including the fix for GEODE-7178. This >> resolves >> > >> an >> > >>>>> issue that Ivan (https://markmail.org/message/dwwac42xmpo4xb2e) >> ran >> > >>>> into in >> > >>>>> 1.10 RC1. >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> SHA: 91176d61df64bf1390cdba7b1cdc2b40cdfaba3a >> > >>>>> Link to GitHub: >> > >>>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/91176d61df64bf1390cdba7b1cdc2b40cdfaba3a >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> Thanks! >> > >>>>> -michael >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >
