Re: [DISCUSS] abandon branch protection rules

Please maintain the branch protection rules. Waiting for reviews and Unit tests to pass does not stifle productivity, but prevents us from making mistakes that are detrimental to the entire community. If I am not mistaken, we still have pushed code which broke builds and regressions. I would sugges

Re: [DISCUSS] abandon branch protection rules

I would like to keep as is...In my opinion this should not been seen as policing; rather a concerted effort towards keeping the code stable. And way to isolate the problem sooner than later (after merging of multiple PRs, which will make it harder). Yes, I agree it may be annoying to sit on code ch

Re: [DISCUSS] abandon branch protection rules

Just to add more flavor to my previous response... I currently have a PR open that modified a method signature that touched a few WAN tests. It was a simple change, removing an unused parameter. StressNewTest failed and I had to spend another day figuring out 10 or so different failures. A waste

Re: [DISCUSS] abandon branch protection rules

I feel the frustration at times, but I do also think the ci/pipelines are improving, breaking less often. I'm ok with the way things are for the moment On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 1:47 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > In October we agreed to require at least 1 reviewer and 4 passing PR > checks before a PR

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.11.0.RC4

Hi All, It seems that we have the 3 PMC member votes needed plus extra votes, so I will begin the release process for Apache Geode 1.11.0.RC4, once cwiki.apache.org comes back online. Final tallies appear to be. 5 +1 (Yes, release it.) 1 -0 (Releasing is OK, but…

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.11.0.RC4

This is the most recent fix on develop for the benchmark issues. Also tends to indicate that the tests are flaky. commit 278c2470a5cac2c332d13914b935f0618b820a91 Author: Helena Bales Date: Mon Dec 16 11:16:55 2019 -0800 GEODE-7554: Add retry mechanism for failed tests (#4461) * GEODE-

[DISCUSS] abandon branch protection rules

In October we agreed to require at least 1 reviewer and 4 passing PR checks before a PR can be merged. Now that we’re tried it for a few months, do we like it? I saw some strong opinions on the dev list recently: > Changes to the infrastructure to flat out prevent things that should be self >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.11.0.RC4

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 1:28 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > It looks like the Benchmark < > https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/apache-release-1-11-0-main/jobs/Benchmark/builds/11> > job in the release pipeline has failed for the last 4 runs. At various > times it has flagged Pa

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.11.0.RC4

I am not a PMC member, but my vote is a -0… I found no new functional issues after running 1.11.0.RC4 though a battery of acceptance tests, but I am concerned whether changes in performance since the 1.10 release have been adequately explained. It looks like the Benchmark

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.11.0.RC4

+1 Checked geode-native - Windows build succeeded - docs builds succeeded On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 2:00 PM Anthony Baker wrote: > +1 > > Checked: > > - Signatures are good > - SHA’s are good > - geode, geode-native builds from source > - reviewed dependency changes > > Fix for next release: