It's past the announced deadline and we have enough votes to close the vote.
Voting status
==
+1: 5 votes.
PMC members:
* Anthony Baker
* Ernest Burghardt
* Sai Boorlagadda
* Nabarun Nag
Committers:
* Ryan McMahon
-0: 2 votes
* Dan Smith
* Jacob Barrett
-1: zero votes
The relea
+1
I reviewed our prior releases (particularly during incubation) and we’ve
typically handled minor LICENSE corrections in the next release. Since that
the file is already fixed I’m fine moving forward.
Anthony
> On Dec 11, 2018, at 10:05 AM, Anthony Baker wrote:
>
> I’ve reviewed the r
I’ve reviewed the release candidate. I’ll cast my vote after thinking about
the correct way to apply [1] since the geode-native LICENSE is missing cotire
(see develop branch) [2].
Reviewed:
- verified tags
- verified signatures and sha’s
- verified no binaries in source distributions
- verifi
+1 on the release, agree with Sai regarding the geode-native default
version for this source release
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 8:40 AM Sai Boorlagadda
wrote:
> Thanks Naba. I couldn't get this test to pass.
>
> Anyways if it still counts +1 for the release. I am okay to release native
> code if th
Thanks Naba. I couldn't get this test to pass.
Anyways if it still counts +1 for the release. I am okay to release native
code if the version doesn't default to 1.8.0 as we are not including
binaries.
Sai
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:15 AM Jacob Barrett wrote:
> The java bits generate a property
The java bits generate a property file that goes in the source release that
encapsulates all the version info. Maybe native should too.
> On Dec 11, 2018, at 6:47 AM, Ernest Burghardt wrote:
>
> If the community desires the default dev version to match the release,
> let's file a JIRA and chang
If the community desires the default dev version to match the release,
let's file a JIRA and change this... anyone else have an opinion on this
default version?
Thanks!
EB
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:28 PM Jacob Barrett wrote:
> -0
>
> I don’t think a user should have to specify a version when bu
Hi Sai,
I tried running the test on the source distribution using IntelliJ and
gradle scripts. I have not encountered the failure.
Regards
Nabarun Nag
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:20 PM Sai Boorlagadda
wrote:
> -0
>
> - Ran examples
> - Building geode from source distribution or release branch co
-0
- Ran examples
- Building geode from source distribution or release branch consistently
fails 1 unit test
org.apache.geode.internal.cache.partitioned.rebalance.PartitionedRegionLoadModelJUnitTest
> testRedundancySatisfactionPreferRemoteIp FAILED
As CI is green on unit tests, I am considering t
-0
I don’t think a user should have to specify a version when building the source
release of geode-native. If you don’t specify a version it defaults to the
development version of 0.0.42. It should probably default to the source release
version.
Outside of that issue the native sources build a
-0.
Code looks good to me and it passes geode-release-check. But I'd really
like to see some people who have worked on the native code sign off on this
release. We haven't released the native code before, and I don't know how
to validate it other than just to see that it compiles, which doesn't sa
+1
- Ran all examples
- Ran gfsh, created region, performed basic entry operations
- Verified SHAs
- Verified signatures
Ryan
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 4:01 PM Alexander Murmann
wrote:
> A reminder for everyone that the vote is scheduled to end tonight. Please
> verify and vote!
>
> @Galen I'll
A reminder for everyone that the vote is scheduled to end tonight. Please
verify and vote!
@Galen I'll take a look and fix the handwritten note.
>From the release notes:
> ConfigurationProperties.ssl-enabled-components supports `none` option as
advertised.
This is incorrect. The fix for GEODE-5830 was to remove "none" as an option.
Signatures and digests look good, gfsh works.
Speaking of verifying commits, does it make sense to sign rele
+1 on the basis of the below tests.
-- Verified SHAs
-- Verified signatures.
-- Build apache-geode, apache-geode-examples, apache-geode-native
-- Ran the examples
-- start gfsh, start server, create region, do a put, verify using query.
--Verified commit IDs with the release tags.
We should creat
Thanks again for catching this! This should now be fixed.
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:42 AM Jacob Barrett wrote:
> Looks like someone executed CMake in the source directory.
>
> > On Dec 6, 2018, at 10:34 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
> >
> > The native source distribution tarball seems to have a lot of f
Looks like someone executed CMake in the source directory.
> On Dec 6, 2018, at 10:34 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
>
> The native source distribution tarball seems to have a lot of files that
> aren't in source control. See attached:
>
> -Dan
>
>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 6:19 PM Alexander Murmann wr
The native source distribution tarball seems to have a lot of files that
aren't in source control. See attached:
-Dan
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 6:19 PM Alexander Murmann
wrote:
> Hi Apache Geode community,
>
> Below you find all the information for the the second release candidate of
> Geode 1.8.0
18 matches
Mail list logo
