+1
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:58 PM Donal Evans wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:37 PM Benjamin Ross wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:25 PM Anilkumar Gingade
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1. This is needed for spring data-geode; whose upcoming release is
> based
> > > on older
+1
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:37 PM Benjamin Ross wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:25 PM Anilkumar Gingade
> wrote:
>
> > +1. This is needed for spring data-geode; whose upcoming release is based
> > on older geode version.
> >
> > -Anil.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Naba
This has been merged to release/1.10.0.
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:14 AM Dick Cavender 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 wrote:
>
>> +1, IMO this really needs to go in.
>>
>>
+1
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:25 PM Anilkumar Gingade
wrote:
> +1. This is needed for spring data-geode; whose upcoming release is based
> on older geode version.
>
> -Anil.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Nabarun Nag wrote:
>
> > Hi Geode Community ,
> >
> > [GEODE-7121]
> >
> > I would l
+1. This is needed for spring data-geode; whose upcoming release is based
on older geode version.
-Anil.
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Nabarun Nag wrote:
> Hi Geode Community ,
>
> [GEODE-7121]
>
> I would like to include the new feature of creating AEQs with a paused
> event processor to th
+1
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Nabarun Nag wrote:
> Hi Geode Community ,
>
> [GEODE-7121]
>
> I would like to include the new feature of creating AEQs with a paused
> event processor to the release 1.10 branch. This also includes the feature
> to resume the AEQ at a later point in time.
> Th
Hi Geode Community ,
[GEODE-7121]
I would like to include the new feature of creating AEQs with a paused
event processor to the release 1.10 branch. This also includes the feature
to resume the AEQ at a later point in time.
This feature includes addition of new/modified APIs and gfsh commands.
[
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 wrote:
> +1, IMO this really needs to go in.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Blake
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:30 PM Anthony Baker wrote:
>
> > My understanding is that this
+1, IMO this really needs to go in.
Thanks,
Blake
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:30 PM Anthony Baker 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
