GitHub CodeQL > LGTM

been generated for the develop branch and for new PRs to it. Going forward, I will be making a PR to replace the LGTM mandatory check with the CodeQL one. Look for that PR for further discussion 😊 Thanks! -Robert Houghton.

Re: [PROPOSAL] annul support/1.15

I would like GEODE-1028 [1] to be considered for support/1.15. It is a significant change to the build logic, and I think would be a benefit to inclusion in the release branch. PR to develop is available[2] Thank you, -Robert Houghton [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-10283 [2

Re: Proposal: Cut 1.15 release branch from SHA 8f7193c827ee3198ae374101221c02039c70a561

A third option, is to cut the branch as normal, and be ready to revert if we see some kind of issue as we are stabilizing the redis changes On Jan 25, 2022 17:10, Alexander Murmann wrote: Hi everyone, Last week we discussed to cut the 1.15 release branch. I would like to propose that we cut th

Re: LGTM as a gating job on PRs not actually gating?

The test has successfully found a failure! Isn’t that interesting! I’m going to have to look more at how we can configure this via .asf.yml… From: Donal Evans Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 3:20 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: LGTM as a gating job on PRs not actually gating? I just no

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding LTGM as gating PR checks

they have acquired the LGTM product. Anthony > On Dec 16, 2021, at 10:08 AM, Robert Houghton wrote: > > We have had LGTM tests enabled on Apache Geode PRs for quite some time, and have done a great job of trending those warnings and errors to in the right direction. I

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding LTGM as gating PR checks

Excuse me. I meant to link the PR that would enable this behavior: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/7197 -Robert Houghton From: Robert Houghton Date: Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 10:08 AM To: geode Subject: [DISCUSS] Adding LTGM as gating PR checks We have had LGTM tests enabled on

[DISCUSS] Adding LTGM as gating PR checks

-flakiness. Does anyone have strong feelings against that? -Robert Houghton

Re: [DISCUSS] batch patch release voting

I would hope that all RCs had been checked thoroughly before any release VOTE occurs. From: Donal Evans Date: Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 11:47 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] batch patch release voting The thing I wonder about with this decision is what happens if there ar

Re: [DISCUSS] batch patch release voting

In the case where its one change being backported all over, I say batch up the vote. From: Owen Nichols Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 11:46 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [DISCUSS] batch patch release voting Geode's N-2 support policy can lead to "waves" of patch releases. For exa

Re: [RFC] Versioning Extension

Hello Geode Developers, The expected review data for the RFC[1] on implementing Versioning Extensions for Geode has passed. We have implemented feedback from the community into our work-in-progress PR, and are ready to submit it for PR[2] review and testing. Thank you, -Robert Houghton [1

Re: Apache Geode CI upgrade

We are upgrading the Apache Geode Concourse deployment. Pipelines will be paused as we roll over to the new backend. Thanks you, -Robert Houghton From: Robert Houghton Date: Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 3:24 PM To: geode Subject: [Suspected Spam] Apache Geode CI upgrade Hello Geode

Re: @TestOnly or @VisibleForTesting

that is un-ambiguous as to its intent (testing only, non-production). As a consumer of Geode, I think the broader @VisibleForTesting is worse, in that I no longer know the scope from which I am “supposed” to consume the method. Whereas for @TestOnly, I know the answer is “nowhere” -Robert

Apache Geode CI upgrade

the old deployment will break. If this happens to you, change the domain from https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info to https://concourse-calcite.apachegeode-ci.info to reach the broken link. The team is brainstorming on how to not break these links in the future. Thank you, -Robert Houghton

Re: Apache Geode PR pipeline

This should be resolved now. Thanks! From: Robert Houghton Date: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 at 12:07 PM To: geode Subject: Apache Geode PR pipeline A concourse variable change for the PR pipeline has gotten us into a weird state of non-running. We’re working on it. -Robert

Apache Geode PR pipeline

A concourse variable change for the PR pipeline has gotten us into a weird state of non-running. We’re working on it. -Robert

Re: Geode-9621: Spotless overstepping its boundary of formatter

driver for this ticket? Was there a surge in explicit version definitions in gradle files? I mean we as committers have agreed to using BOM constraints. --Udo From: Robert Houghton Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 4:32 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Geode-9621: Spotless overstepping

Re: Geode-9621: Spotless overstepping its boundary of formatter

effect of this change and really only force the version formatter to activate for the ‘main’ configuration and leave every other configuration type (test, distributedTest, integrationTest, acceptanceTest, upgradeTest) alone. --Udo From: Robert Houghton Date: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 10:38 AM To

Re: Geode-9621: Spotless overstepping its boundary of formatter

-string on the dependency line, as we discussed. If you want to continue to work around this, there are many cases of prior art in Geode, such as extensions/geode-modules-tomcat9/build.gradle, where specific versions are allowed. Good luck. -Robert Houghton

Re: Access to the CI pipelines using fly

Sure thing, Udo. I have updated the concourse instance with your github name. -Robert From: Udo Kohlmeyer Date: Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 1:44 PM To: geode Subject: Access to the CI pipelines using fly Hi there Apache Geode Infra, Would it be possible to please grant me access to fly access of

Re: Fw: [DISCUSS] Rebase and Squash Options on Github develop

I for one do not like revisionist history (rebase) but understand that linear history is easier for bisect. From: Blake Bender Date: Monday, June 28, 2021 at 2:24 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: RE: Fw: [DISCUSS] Rebase and Squash Options on Github develop +1, only because I only get one

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.13.3.RC2

+1 I like the build. I verified the output of the RC check jobs, and matched against the source SHA we are trying to publish. From: Owen Nichols Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at 11:56 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [Suspected Spam] [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.13.3.RC2 Hello Geode Dev Communit

Re: [FYI] PR checks

lead to the merge button not being enabled for even passing PRs. If this happens to you, please either re-trigger the specific job, or push a new (empty) commit to your PR branch. Thank you, -Robert Houghton From: Owen Nichols Date: Friday, May 28, 2021 at 9:07 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org

Re: DISCUSSION: Geode Native C++ Style and Formatting Guide

80 characters also feels arbitrary, especially with auto-formatters (clang-tidy?) of mangling some otherwise very-readable code. From: Blake Bender Date: Monday, May 3, 2021 at 11:23 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: RE: DISCUSSION: Geode Native C++ Style and Formatting Guide My $0.02 on the

Re: [VOTE] Requiring final keyword on every parameter and local variable

Does this really "add noise" instead of "add clarity and precision" ? -Robert On 4/14/21, 4:25 PM, "Jason Huynh" wrote: Just to confirm for myself... final doesn't necessarily make object immutable.. the reference is immutable but if it refers to say a list, the list is still mutable.

Re: code-owners seems to have some problems

Hi Mark, Yes, each area of ownership only needs one review-by-owner. Your following question, I do not understand, but I'll try: Any PR that needs review, will have text in the "reviewers needed and status-required" area, that states who is still needed to review. However, there is not a direct

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.12.1.RC4

+1 I verified the version.properties file contents to match the pipeline version that we've tested and verified. -Robert Houghton On 2/21/21, 12:08 PM, "Owen Nichols" wrote: Hello Geode Dev Community, This is a release candidate for Apache Geode version 1.12.1.RC4

Re: Need Access to apachegeode/geode-native-build on docker hub

The apachegeode-ci pipeline is storing images on a GCR project aptly named "apachegeode-ci". It is currently a private repo, hosted on Google, paid by VMware. -Robert On 2/22/21, 9:06 AM, "Anthony Baker" wrote: Where are we hosting images for the geode (not the geode-native) pipeline?

Re: Concourse Access

Confirmed you are on the committer list. Done. On 2/5/21, 9:08 AM, "Jacob Barrett" wrote: May I please have my Concourse access restored. GitHub: pivotal-jbarrett Thanks, Jake

Re: Need Concourse Access

Done. On 2/4/21, 11:06 AM, "Mike Martell" wrote: Please provide concourse access to: github user: mmartell

Re: GEODE-8883 - Enable code-owner reviews on PRs

that projects need to file. I have tried to make sure that the existing repository rules are kept. Please review, and if I missed a rule we can fix it. Thanks, -Robert Houghton

[DISCUSS] CODEOWNERS and .asf.yml

en to add the .asf.yml change that will make the review of one owner mandatory for PR merge. I don't think this needs a formal vote. But please do let me know what you think. -Robert Houghton

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding CODEOWNERS to Apache Geode

h of merge conflicts. --Jens On 12/7/20, 10:07 AM, "Robert Houghton" wrote: I haven’t seen any negative responses, and a big THANK YOU to @onichols for making the first PR to self-volunteer into ownership of some code. Lets give people another week to nominate, or self-nomi

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding CODEOWNERS to Apache Geode

o review and merge changes. Anthony > On Nov 19, 2020, at 10:46 AM, Ernie Burghardt wrote: > > Perfect, then let's give this a try. > +1 > > On 11/19/20, 10:45 AM, "Robert Houghton" wrote: > >Hi Ernie, >

Re: [DISCUSS] Geode 1.14

@alexander, I agree that stabilizing on 1.14 will be much easier to do, than to manage the fixes while develop features move along apace. I disagree that shifting attention to 1.14 will mean that develop does not get better. We can port the fixes forward, just as easily as we backport them. Same

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding CODEOWNERS to Apache Geode

before Nov 26, or do we all just need to be patient until this review period has concluded? From: Robert Houghton Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 2:07 PM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [DISCUSS] Adding CODEOWNERS to Apache Geode Hello Devs. I would like to i

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding CODEOWNERS to Apache Geode

owner is on vacation or otherwise unavailable? Can we submit PRs against the ‘introduce’ branch now and they just won’t be merged before Nov 26, or do we all just need to be patient until this review period has concluded? From: Robert Houghton Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 2:07 PM To: dev

[DISCUSS] Adding CODEOWNERS to Apache Geode

tters @upthewaterspout and @onichols-pivotal, and found it to meet our expectations. Please review the document, and comment or reply to this thread, by 25 November, so we might start the task of nominating and applying for ownership. -Robert Houghton

Utilizing GitHub .CODEOWNERS files

-examples repository, tagging myself and a few volunteers to different code areas, and checking the results. If we like it, we can move on to doing the same to Geode. Will anyone volunteer to get code-reviews for geode-examples changes (that we won't merge) ? Thanks, -Robert Houghton [1]

Re: PR process and etiquette

There are some pieces of Apache infrastructure we can control without needing tickets: Specifically required_pull_request_reviews: dismiss_stale_reviews: true require_code_owner_reviews: true I think these specific controls could go a long way towards helping keep our PR quality

Re: [Suspected Spam] Access to Geode concourse pipeline

Hi Sara. This got thrown into my junk list (thanks, Outlook). I’ll get on this. From: Sarah Abbey Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 9:07 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: [Suspected Spam] Access to Geode concourse pipeline Hello! I would like to request access to the Geode concourse p

Re: Please give me access to debug concourse runs

Hi! I'll set that up first thing tomorrow On Aug 18, 2020 16:49, Darrel Schneider wrote: I would like to use "fly" to login to concourse and look at some test runs that are hanging. Could I be given access please? Thanks

Re: [PROPOSAL] one-time cleanup of stray and obsolete tags in geode repo

+1 I dug in more. My thoughts on the `highwater` tag were out of date. From: Mark Bretl Date: Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 12:47 PM To: geode Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] one-time cleanup of stray and obsolete tags in geode repo +1 --Mark On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 1:30 PM Robert Houghton wrote

Re: [PROPOSAL] one-time cleanup of stray and obsolete tags in geode repo

Highwater isn't used by benchmarks? On Jul 30, 2020 12:02, Dave Barnes wrote: +1 On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 8:45 AM Owen Nichols wrote: > Hi Donal, I can confirm that develop/highwater hasn't been updated in a > year and is no longer in use by any pipelines (all pipelines use the last > release t

Re: Fate of master branch

alue in keeping it, why not pick a meaningful name like "latest_release" or "stable"? If the goal is just to be a "symlink" to latest release tag, why not just explain in the README how to check out the tag for the release you want (which might not always be the latest r

Re: Fate of master branch

I would not delete the branch without a new branch 'main' in its place On Jul 23, 2020 17:50, Owen Nichols wrote: Now that geode-examples' default branch has been changed to develop, and nothing further has been added to this discussion in a while, would anyone like to call for a vote to elimin

Re: about Liberica JDK

Only partially tongue-in-cheek, but isn’t the promise of the JDK, that it is the same everywhere, on all versions, builds, and platforms? From: Kirk Lund Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 10:23 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: about Liberica JDK In the future, I think we should discuss a

Re: Proposal to bring GEODE-8315 (shiro upgrade) to support branches

+1 From: Dick Cavender Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 9:14 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: RE: Proposal to bring GEODE-8315 (shiro upgrade) to support branches +1 -Original Message- From: Ju@N Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 9:12 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: Re: Proposal to

Re: Docker on Windows

Deppe mailto:jde...@vmware.com><mailto:jde...@vmware.com>> wrote: A bigger effort (but I think more correct and sustainable) would be to switch to junit 5 where something like this could more easily be implemented. --Jens On 6/26/20, 9:11 AM, "Robert Houghton" mailto:rhough...

Re: Docker on Windows

The plugin code that spawns junit test workers on containers needs some serious help. Aside from the benefit we would get on windows, we also are blocked on getting to the next major version of Gradle with the current tool. I really think it might be easier to write our own Gradle plugin at this

Re: Is "java" available to acceptanceTests?

The images used for these tests do have Java installed, but not on PATH. You need to pick which $JAVA_HOME (jdk8 or jdk11) you wish to run with. These values are set on the Gradle invocation line for the test type, depending on platform/job-name. From: Kirk Lund Date: Saturday, June 6, 2020 at

Re: LGTM check failed

I’m looking at the logs, and doing some digging. From: Mario Kevo Date: Friday, May 29, 2020 at 3:42 AM To: dev@geode.apache.org Subject: LGTM check failed Hi all, LGTM analysis: Java check failed for last six opened PRs. https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.

Re: [DISCUSS] enable GitHub PR blocking on API breaking changes

INFRA has added the status to the required list for merging PRs to geode/develop. Thanks everyone. On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 3:03 PM Robert Houghton wrote: > Please refer to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-20270 > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 2:58 PM Robert Houghton

Re: [DISCUSS] enable GitHub PR blocking on API breaking changes

Please refer to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-20270 On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 2:58 PM Robert Houghton wrote: > Support seems to be unanimously good, and folks voted in this thread. I'm > going to make the ASF-INFRA request. > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:47 AM Ant

Re: [DISCUSS] enable GitHub PR blocking on API breaking changes

Support seems to be unanimously good, and folks voted in this thread. I'm going to make the ASF-INFRA request. On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:47 AM Anthony Baker wrote: > Barry and I tossed up a draft PR to fix a problem in session state > replication with Tomcat. If we can get this completed I’d l

Re: Update of SSLParameterExtension interface

There is an opportunity to take @Jacob Barrett s advice on using a real configuration class instead of an opaque 'Properties' class here. See https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/5115, where we test the API breaking change with an exemption file. On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 8:52 AM Jacob Barrett wrote

Re: [DISCUSS] enable GitHub PR blocking on API breaking changes

ose > cases. > > For example, how would it handle the removal of a deprecated method from > an > > API? It's not something that happens often, but it will happen eventually > > (I would hope). > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:32 PM Robert Houghton > >

[DISCUSS] enable GitHub PR blocking on API breaking changes

We have enabled this job on the develop and support 1.13 branches, and it is going well. I would like this to be a blocking job for our pull requests. Are there any issues around this test that we want to address, or reasons to *not* have it be a blocking job in the PR pipeline? To seed the conve

Re: [PROPOSAL] Merge PR 5103 (GEODE-8083) to support/1.13

Thanks all. On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 8:34 AM Joris Melchior wrote: > +1 > > From: Robert Houghton > Sent: May 12, 2020 18:57 > To: dev@geode.apache.org ; Dave Barnes (Pivotal) < > dbar...@pivotal.io> > Subject: [PROPOSAL] Merge PR 5

[PROPOSAL] Merge PR 5103 (GEODE-8083) to support/1.13

This is a squash of GEODE-8083 and 8087, to bring the Java API comparison jobs from Gradle and Concourse to the support branch. Currently runs cleanly from my terminal, and has been green on develop for a week or so. @Dave Barnes , as release manager, what say you?

Re: Proposal to bring GEODE-8016 to support branches

Yes please! +1 On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 2:46 AM Darrel Schneider wrote: > +1 > > On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 10:05 PM Dick Cavender > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 6:42 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > > > > > Last week develop was successfully migrated from publishing -SNAPSHOT > to > > >

Re: Discussion - Change Public API Before Initial Release

+1 On Fri, May 8, 2020, 18:26 Jacob Barrett wrote: > Hey Ya’ll, > > We have a new API going into 1.13 that has an inconsistency I want to > address before we are stuck with it. The class SniSocketFactory should be > renamed SniProxySocketFactory. The class in question produces objects of > type

API check results

3 and 1.12 compatibility? Thanks for any guidance, -Robert Houghton

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish Builds, not Snapshots

reat to bring this change > to develop. Assuming it goes smoothly on develop, would you envision > backporting to support/1.13 and support/1.12 as well? > > > On Apr 30, 2020, at 8:38 PM, Robert Houghton > wrote: > > > > I don't read any strong negatives to thi

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish Builds, not Snapshots

> How would it get bumped? > > > > Would a release manager end up using just 1.13.0? Hoping for yes :-) > > > > Anthony > > > >> On Apr 28, 2020, at 9:24 AM, Robert Houghton > wrote: > >> > >> @anthony > >> /develop would say 1

Re: [DISCUSS] etiquette around breaking the pipeline

I am very pro-revert for breaking changes. The Benchmark or Windows tests being a culprit is unfortunate, since the PR pipeline cannot tell us about those, but thats the cost of our excellence :) On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 4:06 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > There are many ways a commit can break the Geo

Re: geodeOldVersionInstalls

Pretty sure it is generated by Gradle in geode-assembly On Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 16:09 Kirk Lund wrote: > Does anyone know how geodeOldVersionInstalls.txt gets created? > > When I try to run > TomcatSessionBackwardsCompatibilityTomcat8WithOldModuleCanDoPutsTest > locally, it fails with the followin

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish Builds, not Snapshots

ild the /develop branch and run `gfsh version` what will it print? > > If I build the soon-to-be /release/1.13 branch and run `gfsh version` what > will it print? > > Anthony > > > On 4/27/20, 4:32 PM, "Robert Houghton" wrote: > > The artifact would cha

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish Builds, not Snapshots

wrote: > Do we know if this is an issue that other open source projects have dealt > with? And if so, is this proposed solution similar to what they might have > done to remedy it? > ____ > From: Robert Houghton > Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish Builds, not Snapshots

ardless of whether we > use -SNAPSHOT or -build.123 … we should replace the 24hr trigger with a > maven-resource trigger (nulldriver, linkyard, or similar) > > > On Apr 27, 2020, at 4:34 PM, Robert Houghton > wrote: > > > > @Owen: What geode-examples is doing, is

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish Builds, not Snapshots

It is also unfortunate that the Maven version coordinate > is ugly. Aside from that I am totally onboard. Yay for reproducible builds > and predictable downstream builds! > >> > >> With SNAPSHOTS in a repo the repository automatically prunes back old > builds. Do we

Re: [DISCUSS] Publish Builds, not Snapshots

tally onboard. Yay for reproducible builds > and predictable downstream builds! > > > > With SNAPSHOTS in a repo the repository automatically prunes back old > builds. Do we have any concerns about having a plethora of builds filling > up this new pre-release repository? > > &g

[DISCUSS] Publish Builds, not Snapshots

are published. Discrete, numbered builds do not. Downstream consumers can use greedy version specifiers to get their current behavior of "latest". Gradle: 'org.apache.geode:geode-core:1.13.0+' Maven: 'org.apache.geode' 'geode-core' 

Re: [DISCUSS] should we add some Windows PR checks?

I would like to *not* include them, until they can take advantage of our run-in-docker behavior, and not be dog slow. Plus, they are *very* expensive instances. On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 1:25 PM Donal Evans wrote: > Having just hit this issue myself, and seen it crop up a few times when I > was CI

Re: [VOTE] Using Github issues and wiki for geode-kafka-connector project

Looks like we can use the `.asf.yml` file in our repositories to enable `issues` and `wiki` behavior ourselves if we decide we like the feature :) On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 7:46 AM Dave Barnes wrote: > +1 > I like the look of the samples. > I also want to echo Anthony and Blake: Accessibility is h

Re: Reconfiguring our notifications and more

+1 On Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 08:54 Anthony Baker wrote: > I’d like a quick round of feedback so we can stop the dev@ spamming [1]. > > ASF has implemented a cool way to give projects control of lots of things > [2]. In short, you provide a .asf.yml in each and every GitHub repo to > control lots of

Re: [PROPOSAL]: GEODE-7940 to support/1.12

Conditional +1 from me too, pending a few days on develop with happy results :) Thanks Juan! On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 1:41 AM Ju@N wrote: > Hello devs, > > I'd like to propose bringing *GEODE-7940 [1]* to the *support/1.12* branch. > The bug is not new, seems quite old actually, but still seems

Re: [Discuss] Cache.close synchronous is not synchronous, but code still expects it to be....

The time out is increased in the shared Jinja variables file On Thu, Apr 16, 2020, 10:48 Kirk Lund wrote: > I revived my branch by rebasing it on develop and filed a new draft PR: > > https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4963 > > Unfortunately, IntegrationTest exceeds timeout every time I trigge

Re: RFC: Add C Bindings to Geode Native Client

Quick note: ccache is a C/C++ compiler cache. Examples using 'ccache' as the name are confusing. On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 3:56 PM Jacob Barrett wrote: > > > > On Mar 31, 2020, at 3:06 PM, Blake Bender wrote: > > > > We in this instance means the native client team. As far as specific > > commen

Re: RFC: Add C Bindings to Geode Native Client

+1 YES. Having a set of clean C headers also allows for using a broad set of code generators for additional languages (Swig, for example). On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 2:20 PM Blake Bender wrote: > Hello everyone, > > We'd like to add C bindings to the native client, in preparation for the > large

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Github Wiki and Issus are now activated on geode-kafka-connector

Woo! Now I just need to find an issue to file or something important to document in the wiki... Thanks, Naba! On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:42 PM Nabarun Nag wrote: > Hi, > > Issues are wiki pages are now active on the geode-kafka-connector > repository. Thank you all for the kind votes. > > Regar

Re: [VOTE] Using Github issues and wiki for geode-kafka-connector project

+1! On Sat, Mar 21, 2020, 17:17 Nabarun Nag wrote: > Hello team, > > We are planning to experiment with using Github issues and wiki for the > Apache project *Geode-Kafka-Connector. *(not Apache Geode project). Please > do give your vote on this as we need to send the vote link to infra to > act

Re: Welcome!

And thank goodness! Plenty of work to share around. Welcome! On Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 17:21 Anthony Baker wrote: > Over the last few months the Geode PMC has invited the following > people as new committers and PMC members. We’ve been remiss in > officially recognizing your new status, but welcome

Re: [PROPOSAL] eliminate file count loophole in PR StressNewTest

t; > >>>>> 46 is too many changed tests to stress test. Allowing this job to > > pass > > >>>>> without stress testing. (build 6244) > > >>>>> 46 is too many changed tests to stress test. Allowing this job to > > pass > >

Re: [PROPOSAL] eliminate file count loophole in PR StressNewTest

hed 66 test files. > > > > There’s currently no good data to predict how long StressNew will take, > it > > just depends on the mix of tests touched. I am aware of at least 4 cases > > (with less than 25 files) where the timeout was hit. In two of those > cases > &g

Re: [PROPOSAL] eliminate file count loophole in PR StressNewTest

Yes, as it should On Sat, Feb 29, 2020, 12:25 Dan Smith wrote: > Doesn't the build fail when concourse times out? > > -Dan > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020, 1:37 PM Donal Evans wrote: > > > +1 > > > > If the original reason for the 25 file limit was to prevent StressNewTest > > taking too long, then th

Re: Redis PubSubTest started failing

We don't even have windows unit tests for PRs. Walk before we run... On Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 09:00 Owen Nichols wrote: > Perhaps also worth considering: can we get WindowsStressNew added to the PR > checks? > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 8:50 AM Udo Kohlmeyer wrote: > > > Is this something that can

Re: [PROPOSAL] include GEODE-7796 in Release 1.12.0

+1 On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 12:49 Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > This fix addresses the inability of a Locator to properly reconnect to the > cluster after being kicked out. Instead of rejoining or shutting down the > Locator gets into a state where it no longer tries to reboot location > services and

Re: Odg: acceptance test task failing?

------- > *Šalje:* Robert Houghton > *Poslano:* 17. veljače 2020. 16:02 > *Prima:* dev@geode.apache.org > *Predmet:* Re: acceptance test task failing? > > The test has been erroring consistently on develop since > > https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/1a0d9769e48

Re: acceptance test task failing?

The test has been erroring consistently on develop since https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/1a0d9769e482f49e0c725c0d6adc75d324f88958 On Mon, Feb 17, 2020, 06:39 Alberto Bustamante Reyes wrote: > Hi, > > After just changing some typos on a PR, I got errors on > geode-connectors:acceptanceTest

Re: StressNewTest timeout exceeded

How did you change its timeout? On Wed, Feb 5, 2020, 07:27 Owen Nichols wrote: > Hi Mario, I’ve re-triggered your PR check with a longer timeout, since I > think you are only about an hour over the current timeout of 6 hours for > StressNewTest. > > > On Feb 5, 2020, at 5:10 AM, Mario Kevo wrot

Re: Old geode-benchmark PRs

@Alberto I like this idea. The link between Jira and the GitHub PR will be a nice breadcrumb to follow going forward as well, assuming the PRs are correctly labeled for cross-linking to occur. On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:05 AM Alberto Bustamante Reyes wrote: > What about closing the PRs and creat

Re: [DISCUSS] include geode-benchmarks in 1.12 release

Let's not vote until there is a call to vote, folks... On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 18:31 Jacob Barrett wrote: > I would characterize my vote as 0. I really don’t care either way. Just > sharing I think they have no value in a release. > > > On Jan 16, 2020, at 6:08 PM, Owen Nichols wrote: > > > > 

Re: RFC - Logging to Standard Out

+1 On Wed, Jan 8, 2020, 12:39 Jacob Barrett wrote: > Please see RFC for Logging to Standard Out. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Logging+to+Standard+Out > > > > Please comment by 1/21/2020. > > Tha

Re: [DISCUSS] Proposal to require linear commit history on develop

@onichols Correction: The 'git-flow' workflow that Geode follows is to merge a release commit to master and to develop. On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 4:51 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > Dan, to address some of your concerns: > > This proposal is to block merge commit on develop only. The release > process

Re: [DISCUSS] abandon branch protection rules

@Jacob Barrett I have some ideas on this. Want to look at in on Thursday with me? On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 5:28 AM Jacob Barrett wrote: > Let’s find a way to get the ci, docs, and other directories not effected > by tests out of this testing hold. > > > On Dec 27, 2019, at 3:23 PM, Nabarun Nag

Re: PR Checks issues?

We could have the content of the PR jobs check that actual sources changed, before doing any real 'work' or 'validation' of the change. If the patch is only CI or readme (not docs, those get compiled) then we can exit with a clean state. Saves time, and money! If the issue is the lack of Concourse

Re: [VOTE] Release candidate for Apache Geode version 1.11.0.RC3.

@udo, if one needs to use a strong word like 'offender', then the offender is the one using an internal API. Geode is under no obligation to maintain or "fix" these for any project. Is there a Jira, github issue, or pull-request to promote the internal class to the public space? Is there a feature

Re: [DISCUSS] is overriding a PR check ever justified?

Answering here, because it was asked: @nnag This commit was allowed to merge because we test 'geode' code in the PR pipeline, but we do not test the CI structure and scripts. This is to protect the infrastructure from being hijacked to do things like mine bitcoin, operate as a botnet, etc. The CI d

[VOTE] Fix bad-merge of GEODE-7488

I was overzealous in a merge to Geode, and got us into a chicken-and-egg issue for PRs and reverts. Calling a vote to override the GitHub merge button restriction via commiter privileges, to merge the fix in https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4360

Re: PR jobs failing to start

This was me. I merged a CI change that was missing an SSH option flag. We need to override the PR merge check to fix. I have paused PR jobs until then. On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 11:52 AM Kirk Lund wrote: > FYI: Looks like all PR test and build jobs are failing with: > > Warning: Permanently added

  1   2   >