just thought it might be nice to include if a minor
version of a past Geode release is created in the future.
From: Anilkumar Gingade
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 2:51 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION]
esday, January 12, 2021 7:57 AM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Should We Backport Publishing of Geode Tomcat Module
Hey Sarah
Is there any downside to backporting it?
Does the missing dependency seem like something that would be easily diagnosed
if a minor version is creat
eode release is created in the future.
From: Anilkumar Gingade
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 2:51 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Should We Backport Publishing of Geode Tomcat
Module
Is there a user request to use t
uture.
From: Anilkumar Gingade
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 2:51 PM
To: dev@geode.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Should We Backport Publishing of Geode Tomcat Module
Is there a user request to use this in an older version?
How easy is it to backport?
From the comments, it looks
Is there a user request to use this in an older version?
How easy is it to backport?
From the comments, it looks like it is needed for Geode artifacts published to
Maven? Is this true?
If there is no user request, and there is other way to include Tomcat session,
my view is to not backport, but
If this is just adding an additional published artifact, sounds like there
would be no backward-compatibility issue or breaking change...feel free to
backport to support/1.13 and support/1.12 if desired.
Currently there has been no proposal for a Geode 1.13.2 or 1.12.1 release, but
you're wel
