Thank you for the reference to the other thread, Jens. I hope my questions
aren't too late in the process.
Mario, are there any limitations that should be understood about the types
of certificates used or how they're generated? Do you have the freedom to
use certificate chaining and have the root
This thread contains more background on the reasons for this proposal:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2418dd1b5f9ae812daa48a51a8d2eb252a3c861a890264f47da3a4d3@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:46 AM Ivan Godwin wrote:
> I've reviewed the PR and I believe I understand th
Hi All,
Can I have access to edit the Geode Wiki to add release notes? My confluence ID
is "mhanson".
Thanks,
Mark
Hello Geode Dev Community,
This is a release candidate for Apache Geode version 1.11.0.RC2.
Thanks to all the community members for their contributions to this release!
Please do a review and give your feedback, including the checks you performed.
Voting deadline:
3PM PST Mon, November 25 2019.
I've hit the same error as Kirk. My lazy solution was to just rerun
`./gradlew build` cause that would pass on the second time.
-michael
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 4:53 PM Dan Smith wrote:
> We recently added this test. It passes for me, but I will look into it. It
> is scanning classes, so that
We recently added this test. It passes for me, but I will look into it. It
is scanning classes, so that may be your oome.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 4:00 PM Kirk Lund wrote:
> Any ideas why DistributionArchUnitTest would run OutOfMemoryError when
> doing a "./gradlew build"?
>
> I think we should mov
Build Update for apache/geode-native
-
Build: #2219
Status: Passed
Duration: 1 hr, 36 mins, and 25 secs
Commit: 24c5c78 (rel/v1.11.0.RC2)
Author: M. Oleske
Message: Resolve LGTM issues in ThinClientPoolDM (#543)
* LGTM issues in ThinClientPoolDM, among other t
Any ideas why DistributionArchUnitTest would run OutOfMemoryError when
doing a "./gradlew build"?
I think we should move any unit tests that run OutOfMemoryError out of unit
tests (to integration tests maybe?).
> Task :geode:geode-core:test
Heap dump file created [957877145 bytes in 17.227 secs]
Build Update for apache/geode-examples
-
Build: #391
Status: Errored
Duration: 1 min and 41 secs
Commit: f022403 (rel/v1.11.0.RC2)
Author: Mark Hanson
Message: temporarily point to staging repo for CI purposes
View the changeset:
https://github.com/apache/geo
Build Update for apache/geode-native
-
Build: #2218
Status: Passed
Duration: 1 hr, 37 mins, and 54 secs
Commit: 24c5c78 (rel/v1.11.0.RC1)
Author: M. Oleske
Message: Resolve LGTM issues in ThinClientPoolDM (#543)
* LGTM issues in ThinClientPoolDM, among other t
Build Update for apache/geode-examples
-
Build: #388
Status: Passed
Duration: 28 mins and 3 secs
Commit: f022403 (release/1.11.0)
Author: Mark Hanson
Message: temporarily point to staging repo for CI purposes
View the changeset:
https://github.com/apache/geod
I've reviewed the PR and I believe I understand the use case, but I feel a
bit uncomfortable with the misuse of SNI. As I understand it, and as it has
been already mentioned, SNI is used to determine which SSL certificate
should be presented to a client.
I think that CLIENT_HELLO_EXTENSION should
Build Update for apache/geode-examples
-
Build: #389
Status: Errored
Duration: 1 min and 31 secs
Commit: 5a57cfb (rel/v1.11.0.RC1)
Author: Mark Hanson
Message: Prepping for 1.11.0 release
View the changeset:
https://github.com/apache/geode-examples/compare/re
To be clear, this proposal just wants to update the *minimum* *documented*
requirement. The following PR would require that to be 3.0:
https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4311
There is no additional change required other than documentation.
--Jens
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 9:46 AM Udo Kohlmeyer
I think that we should really be looking at going to 4.0.
It would be compatible with 3.1, but given that 4.0 is standard with
Java 8 (which already EOL), we should try and get onto the latest.
I don't think that us aligning ourselves with a tech release in 2013 is
something we should do.
-
Since there appears to be consensus, I'm going to give this thread another
24 hours and will then consider this proposal accepted.
If anyone does have concerns please do raise them now.
Thanks
--Jens
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 8:17 AM Joris Melchior wrote:
> +1 for bumping to 3.1
>
> On Fri, Nov
16 matches
Mail list logo