Passed: apache/geode-native#2099 (rel/v1.10.0.RC2 - 0668f6b)

2019-09-19 Thread Travis CI
Build Update for apache/geode-native - Build: #2099 Status: Passed Duration: 1 hr, 36 mins, and 26 secs Commit: 0668f6b (rel/v1.10.0.RC2) Author: Owen Nichols Message: GEODE-7182: fix a warning in TcpSslConn.cpp that prevents successful compilation on gcc 8.3

Errored: apache/geode-examples#364 (rel/v1.10.0.RC2 - 075158b)

2019-09-19 Thread Travis CI
Build Update for apache/geode-examples - Build: #364 Status: Errored Duration: 55 secs Commit: 075158b (rel/v1.10.0.RC2) Author: Dick Cavender Message: temporarily point to staging repo for CI purposes View the changeset: https://github.com/apache/geode-examp

Re: [VOTE] Adding a lucene specific fix to release/1.10.0

2019-09-19 Thread Udo Kohlmeyer
Given that we have ALREADY merged this in AND it has passed through the majority of our pipeline without incident, I'll change to a -0... I make this is a " - " because I'm quietly objecting to the fact that we have not followed process and merged without waiting for consensus. Also the reaso

Re: [VOTE] Adding a lucene specific fix to release/1.10.0

2019-09-19 Thread Dick Cavender
This problem has happened before, and will probably happen in the future. Recently we adjusted the Geode release process to dictate that the Geode release manager will handle the merging of approved changes to a release branch while also allowing the community time for input and discussion on those

Re: [VOTE] Adding a lucene specific fix to release/1.10.0

2019-09-19 Thread Udo Kohlmeyer
-1 I must agree with Owen's analysis. It's a known problem, and it will not cause the system to stop working. Yes, it is a bug and will cause issues with results, BUT it will NOT affect the stability of the system. Which is one of the only reasons we should be adding fixes to an already cut r

Re: [VOTE] Adding a lucene specific fix to release/1.10.0

2019-09-19 Thread Owen Nichols
Thank you for providing some context for what is being voted here. Based on this information, I will give my vote as “+0” (imho it may not meet the definition of a “critical fix”, but seems like the risk is low and the community wants it, so I have no real objection). > On Sep 19, 2019, at 11

Re: [VOTE] Adding a lucene specific fix to release/1.10.0

2019-09-19 Thread Xiaojian Zhou
Owen: Here are the answers: - Is this fixing an issue of Data loss? Performance degradation? Backward-compatibility issue? Availability impacts? Resource exhaustion (threads, disk, cpu, memory, sockets, etc)? Without the fix, fields in the inherited attributes cannot be indexed, if it's user obj

Re: [VOTE] Adding a lucene specific fix to release/1.10.0

2019-09-19 Thread Owen Nichols
> On Sep 19, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Xiaojian Zhou wrote: > > Owen: > > The reason is: it's already cherry-picked to 1.9. Can you kindly point me to the specific SHA where this was fixed in 1.9? I am not able to find it... > > Gester > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:13 AM Owen Nichols wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] Adding a lucene specific fix to release/1.10.0

2019-09-19 Thread Xiaojian Zhou
Owen: The reason is: it's already cherry-picked to 1.9. Gester On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:13 AM Owen Nichols wrote: > It looks like this has already passed the vote, but I don’t see an > explanation anywhere in this thread for what makes this a "critical fix". > > As I recall release/1.10.0 wa

Re: [VOTE] Adding a lucene specific fix to release/1.10.0

2019-09-19 Thread Owen Nichols
It looks like this has already passed the vote, but I don’t see an explanation anywhere in this thread for what makes this a "critical fix". As I recall release/1.10.0 was branched at the beginning of August, so it seems appropriate to apply a very high level of scrutiny to any continuing propos

Re: [VOTE] Adding a lucene specific fix to release/1.10.0

2019-09-19 Thread Anilkumar Gingade
+1 On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:02 AM Eric Shu wrote: > +1 > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:59 AM Benjamin Ross wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:49 AM Xiaojian Zhou > wrote: > > > > > > > I want to me

Re: [VOTE] Adding a lucene specific fix to release/1.10.0

2019-09-19 Thread Eric Shu
+1 On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:59 AM Benjamin Ross wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:49 AM Xiaojian Zhou wrote: > > > > > I want to merge GEODE-7208, which is lucene specific fix > > > > > > The fix will enable index

Re: [VOTE] Adding a lucene specific fix to release/1.10.0

2019-09-19 Thread Benjamin Ross
+1 On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:49 AM Xiaojian Zhou wrote: > > > I want to merge GEODE-7208, which is lucene specific fix > > > > The fix will enable indexing on inherited attributes in user object. > > > > revision 4ec87419d456748a7d85

Re: [VOTE] Adding a lucene specific fix to release/1.10.0

2019-09-19 Thread Nabarun Nag
+1 On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:49 AM Xiaojian Zhou wrote: > I want to merge GEODE-7208, which is lucene specific fix > > The fix will enable indexing on inherited attributes in user object. > > revision 4ec87419d456748a7d853e979c90ad4e301b2405 > > Regards > Gester >

[VOTE] Adding a lucene specific fix to release/1.10.0

2019-09-19 Thread Xiaojian Zhou
I want to merge GEODE-7208, which is lucene specific fix The fix will enable indexing on inherited attributes in user object. revision 4ec87419d456748a7d853e979c90ad4e301b2405 Regards Gester

Re: Please review PR #4024

2019-09-19 Thread Mark Hanson
Hi All, This has been merged. It got three reviews already so we merged it. Thanks, Mark > On Sep 18, 2019, at 4:15 PM, Kirk Lund wrote: > > Please review PR #4024 > https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4024 > > The purpose of this PR is to reduce flaky failures involving ServerLauncher > te

Re: Backward compatibility issue in 1.10

2019-09-19 Thread Darrel Schneider
I agree that it is not needed in 1.10 since this interface is not meant to be implemented by users On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 5:25 AM Jacob Barrett wrote: > Good find. I agree that it’s fine since it’s not a user implemented > interface. > > > On Sep 19, 2019, at 1:20 AM, Alberto Bustamante Reyes >

Re: Backward compatibility issue in 1.10

2019-09-19 Thread Jacob Barrett
Good find. I agree that it’s fine since it’s not a user implemented interface. > On Sep 19, 2019, at 1:20 AM, Alberto Bustamante Reyes > wrote: > > Hi, > > During PR review of GEODE-6871 it was found that GEODE-5222 introduced a > backward compatibility issue by adding a new method to a publ

Backward compatibility issue in 1.10

2019-09-19 Thread Alberto Bustamante Reyes
Hi, During PR review of GEODE-6871 it was found that GEODE-5222 introduced a backward compatibility issue by adding a new method to a public interface without providing a default implementation. According to comments in the PR, although the impacted interface (DiskStoreMXBean) is public, it sho