@Naba, Thank you for this.
I think we have identified quite a few PR's (I think we could name
around 5 ppl who have started this).
The intent is to align the versions with verified BOM versions. THAT
should hopefully help this exercise be simplified.
--Udo
On 11/7/19 3:37 PM, Nabarun Nag w
Initial attempts have been made : https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/4256
This PR has Maintainers edit permissions enabled.
We need to figure out a plan on these following springframework
dependencies too.
- spring-hateos [geode - 0.25.0 RELEASE latest 1.0.1 RELEASE]
- spring-plugin-core [geode
+1
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 1:28 PM Dan Smith wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 12:49 PM Jens Deppe wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:39 PM Udo Kohlmeyer wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry,
> > >
> > > To clarify... When we change the Spring version we would be looking at
> > > looking
+1
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 12:49 PM Jens Deppe wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:39 PM Udo Kohlmeyer wrote:
>
> > Sorry,
> >
> > To clarify... When we change the Spring version we would be looking at
> > looking to use the latest version and it's associated BOM.
> >
> > That might be inc
+1
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:39 PM Udo Kohlmeyer wrote:
> Sorry,
>
> To clarify... When we change the Spring version we would be looking at
> looking to use the latest version and it's associated BOM.
>
> That might be inclusive of other Spring project upgrades.
>
> --Udo
>
> On 10/30/19 1:35 PM
Sorry,
To clarify... When we change the Spring version we would be looking at
looking to use the latest version and it's associated BOM.
That might be inclusive of other Spring project upgrades.
--Udo
On 10/30/19 1:35 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
Hi Udo,
Maven has the latest as 5.2.0.RELEASE as t
Hi Udo,
Maven has the latest as 5.2.0.RELEASE as the latest version. In the
Dependency.groovy file, we have been putting the full version number. Hence
I am guessing you are suggesting we put 5.2.0.RELEASE?
What about the status of the following dependencies?
'org.springframework.hateoas', name:
@Naba,
At this point 5.2.x is the weapon of choice. Might be 5.3.x, depending
on when we get to doing this.
--Udo
On 10/30/19 12:02 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
Hi Udo
+1,
5.2.0.RELEASE to be specific?
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:04 AM Ju@N wrote:
Hello Udo,
Big +1 for the proposal!.
That sai
Hi Udo
+1,
5.2.0.RELEASE to be specific?
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:04 AM Ju@N wrote:
> Hello Udo,
>
> Big +1 for the proposal!.
> That said, I believe it was agreed a couple of months ago in the
> *Lightweight
> RFC Process [1] *that the whole discussion should be done in the [DISCUSS]
> email
Hello Udo,
Big +1 for the proposal!.
That said, I believe it was agreed a couple of months ago in the *Lightweight
RFC Process [1] *that the whole discussion should be done in the [DISCUSS]
email thread directly and not as comments within the proposal itself, you
might want to double check that an
10 matches
Mail list logo
