Hi Apache Geode community,
Below you find all the information for the the second release candidate of
Geode 1.8.0. All packaging issues related to Geode native should be
resolved in this candidate. Everything else is unchanged.
Please review and provide feedback, so that the vote can end by the e
Makes sense to me - I will pursue removing the PowerMock dependency all
together when all usages are removed.
Ryan
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:47 PM Helena Bales wrote:
> +1 to Galen. I was thinking about the GeodeAwaitility vs. Awaitility rule,
> but that one only needed the rule because we do st
+1 to Galen. I was thinking about the GeodeAwaitility vs. Awaitility rule,
but that one only needed the rule because we do still depend on Awaitility.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:49 PM Alexander Murmann
wrote:
> +1 to Galen's point. We already follow a PR process and if a committer
> bypasses that
+1 to Galen's point. We already follow a PR process and if a committer
bypasses that to sneak PowerMock back in, it seems like we have much larger
problems.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 10:35 AM Galen O'Sullivan
wrote:
> Can we just remove PowerMock from our dependencies and skip the rule? I'd
> like
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17226
> On Dec 5, 2018, at 11:26 AM, Jacob Barrett wrote:
>
> They are investigating security concerns around the integration.
>
>> On Dec 5, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote:
>>
>> Maybe we need to poke infra about this
>>
>>> On 11/9/18
They are investigating security concerns around the integration.
> On Dec 5, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Bruce Schuchardt wrote:
>
> Maybe we need to poke infra about this
>
>> On 11/9/18 3:07 PM, Jacob Barrett wrote:
>> I opened a ticket with infra earlier this week to enable PR integration.
>> There
Maybe we need to poke infra about this
On 11/9/18 3:07 PM, Jacob Barrett wrote:
I opened a ticket with infra earlier this week to enable PR integration. There
hasn’t been any movement.
On Nov 9, 2018, at 3:00 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
As per running periodically , LGTM runs it every Monday.
A
Can we just remove PowerMock from our dependencies and skip the rule? I'd
like to hope we can control our dependencies reasonably well.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 4:45 PM Ryan McMahon wrote:
> +1 to a spotless rule. Unless anyone objects, I’ll look into doing that
> after PowerMock is eliminated.
>
