Please proceed with the proposed merge, Juan.
Thanks,
Dave
On 2020/05/21 16:15:59, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote:
> +1..
> On May 21, 2020, 8:12 AM -0700, Ju@N , wrote:
> Hello devs,
>
> I'd like to propose bringing *GEODE-8150 [1] *to the *support/1.13* branch.
> The ticket is basically to revert the up
Looks like there's enough consensus already (three +1s), so I've cherry
picked the commit into support/1.13 branch [1].
Best regards.
[1]:
https://github.com/apache/geode/commit/281937d17df639cd416f0e6ce47dd73ed9e8595f
On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 17:16, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote:
> +1..
> On May 21, 2020,
+1..
On May 21, 2020, 8:12 AM -0700, Ju@N , wrote:
Hello devs,
I'd like to propose bringing *GEODE-8150 [1] *to the *support/1.13* branch.
The ticket is basically to revert the upgrade of the *classgraph* [2]
library, we found some performance issues that are not addressed even when
using the late
+1
While I’d rather see us go all the way back to 4.0.6, this seems like a step in
that direction.
> On May 21, 2020, at 8:30 AM, Anthony Baker wrote:
>
> +1 thanks Juan
>
>> On May 21, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Ju@N wrote:
>>
>> Hello devs,
>>
>> I'd like to propose bringing *GEODE-8150 [1] *to
+1 thanks Juan
> On May 21, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Ju@N wrote:
>
> Hello devs,
>
> I'd like to propose bringing *GEODE-8150 [1] *to the *support/1.13* branch.
> The ticket is basically to revert the upgrade of the *classgraph* [2]
> library, we found some performance issues that are not addressed ev
Hello devs,
I'd like to propose bringing *GEODE-8150 [1] *to the *support/1.13* branch.
The ticket is basically to revert the upgrade of the *classgraph* [2]
library, we found some performance issues that are not addressed even when
using the latest released version, the full details can be seen i
