Develop pipeline is not dependent on Windows jobs and the initial reason
being not to slow down the pipeline.
But the WindowsIntegrationTest has not had a consistent green runs and is
red either
- due to gradle crashing half-way through (not enough memory?) or
- a flaky test
So should we be considering windows jobs for the release 1.7.0?
Pipeline does not already depend on windows jobs, so we can ignore those
jobs for 1.7.0 or make them invisible until they are stable?
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:37 PM Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> I expect to close PR#2368 for GEODE-5590 without merging it due to
> unexpected test failures in other test categories.
>
> Instead I have PR#2389 (for GEODE 5601) to attain stable test results for
> AcceptanceTests. This is a simpler fix to the problem at the expense of a
> slightly longer runtime for AcceptanceTests (~2min).
>
> Once we have reliable test results we can take additional time to improve
> the build/test process for future releases.
>
> > On Aug 28, 2018, at 10:48 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I waiting for a green precheckin for GEODE-5594.
> >
> > Sai
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:43 AM Alexander Murmann <amurm...@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for chiming in, Sai! Are you at this point waiting for more
> reviews?
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Sai Boorlagadda <
> >> sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> GEODE-5338 is downvoted for the security concerns related to trusting
> >>> the default trust store and thus resulted in an improvement to add a
> >>> hostname
> >>> validation as a feature before we can support trusting default trust
> >> store.
> >>>
> >>> So GEODE-5338 is blocked by GEODE-5594.
> >>>
> >>> Once I merge GEODE-5594, I will reinitiate review on GEODE-5338 PR.
> >>>
> >>> Sai
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 10:15 AM Alexander Murmann <
> amurm...@pivotal.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Looks like we are now waiting for these tickets:
> >>>>
> >>>> GEODE-5601 which is a dup of GEODE-5590 which has this open PR:
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2368.
> >>>> GEODE-5594 has open PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346
> >>>> GEODE-5338 <https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2346GEODE-5338> has
> >>> open
> >>>> PR: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/2244.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does this look right?
> >>>>
> >>>> The GEODE-5338 ticket is the most concerning to me right now. The PR
> >> was
> >>>> down voted, had some down voted discussion and nothing since. Sai
> >>> mentioned
> >>>> yesterday that this might be able to merge. That's surprising given
> the
> >>>> downvotes and lack of discussion. Sai, do you want to give us a
> update,
> >>>> maybe on the PR?
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Juan José Ramos <jra...@pivotal.io>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thanks!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:13 AM Nabarun Nag <n...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Juan,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> GEODE-5618 as PR#2360 has been merged in to develop. The new branch
> >>> has
> >>>>> not
> >>>>>> yet been created hence this fix will be in 1.7.0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Juan José Ramos <
> >> jra...@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hello team,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can we also include GEODE-5618 in the next release?. The pull
> >>> request
> >>>>> has
> >>>>>>> been approved already, it just needs to be merged.
> >>>>>>> Best regards.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:45 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >>>>>> bschucha...@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> great! thanks
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 1:42 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I completely agree. Once the branch is created, it will
> >> undergo
> >>>> all
> >>>>>>>>> compatibility and upgrade tests.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The commit that you have mentioned will be reverted in 1.7.0,
> >>> as
> >>>>> well
> >>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>> any related commits
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>> Nabarun Nag
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >>>>>>> bschucha...@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think it's as easy as doing a rebase. Someone added
> >>> the
> >>>>> 1.8
> >>>>>>>>>> version to Version.java and we need to revert that. We also
> >>>> need
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>> if it's being used anywhere for backward-compatibility. If
> >>> it's
> >>>>> in
> >>>>>>> use
> >>>>>>>>>> those changes need to be examined and probably undone on the
> >>>>> branch
> >>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>>>> they're targeting 1.7 peers/clients.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 12:11 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> @Bruce those changes were done when 1.7.0 release process
> >> was
> >>>>>>>>>> in-progress,
> >>>>>>>>>>> and a release branch was already created. But we stopped
> >> that
> >>>>>> process
> >>>>>>>> mid
> >>>>>>>>>>> way. This happened in May 2018.
> >>>>>>>>>>> We are planning to rebase the 1.7.0 brach with the current
> >>>>> develop
> >>>>>>>> pretty
> >>>>>>>>>>> soon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>>>>>>> Nabarun
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruce Schuchardt <
> >>>>>>>>>> bschucha...@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we've cut a 1.7.0 release branch that says
> >> its
> >>>>>> 1.8.0.
> >>>>>>>> Is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that intentional?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> private static final byte GEODE_180_ORDINAL =95;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> public static final VersionGEODE_180 =
> >>>>>>>>>>>> new Version("GEODE","1.8.0", (byte)1, (byte)8,
> >>> (byte)0,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (byte)0,GEODE_180_ORDINAL);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/18 9:50 AM, Sai Boorlagadda wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> After reading through the weekend, validating against CN
> >>> as a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fallback should be acceptable and dont have any further
> >>>>> concerns
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> with default JDK's implementation as expressed[1].
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Planning to merge GEODE-5594 today and following with
> >>>>> GEODE-5338.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/906540e18fa6f85fc77c88c28fc74a
> >>>>> 61402471d2eed4ee9dab4813c9@%3Cdev.geode.apache.org%3E
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM Sai Boorlagadda <
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding GEODE-5594, though the current implementation
> >> is
> >>>>> good
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> needed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more coverage.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> While adding tests to cover negative cases, I found
> >>>> something
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>> JDK's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default implementation of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hostname validation which I am not happy about and so it
> >>>>> needs a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rethought. It could result in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing our own custom algorithm to do hostname
> >>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will send out details and seek to advise on what we
> >>> should
> >>>>> do
> >>>>>>> in a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different thread.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sai
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 10:52 AM Alexander Murmann <
> >>>>>>>>>> amurm...@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To summarize where we are right now in this
> >> discussion, I
> >>>> see
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> following
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets listed in this thread as want-to-haves for 1.7:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5615 - ✅ resolved
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5601 - 🏃♀️ in progress
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5594 - 🏃♀️ waiting for PR review
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5338 - 🏃♀️ waiting for PR review
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - GEODE-5619 - 🙄 in progress in JIRA but has
> >>> merged
> >>>>> PR.
> >>>>>>> What
> >>>>>>>>>> does
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything else that needs to go into 1.7?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems like the best we all can do is to review Sai's
> >>>> PRs.
> >>>>> Is
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Jens Deppe <
> >>>>>> jde...@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd also like to include GEODE-5619
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:59 PM Xiaojian Zhou <
> >>>>>> gz...@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The release will be a great one with so many
> >> historical
> >>>>> bugs
> >>>>>>>> fixed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today I tried to use IJ to build and run with latest
> >>>>>>> build.gradle
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recent moved test packages, it worked. So this
> >>>> refactoring
> >>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> success.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Baker <
> >>>>>>>> aba...@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I most definitely agree!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anthony
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Dan Smith <
> >>>>> dsm...@pivotal.io>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we do want to wait for GEODE-5615
> >>>>> (DistributedTest
> >>>>>>>> OOMEs)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GEODE-5601 (AcceptanceTest port conflicts) to be
> >>> fixed
> >>>>>> before
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new 1.7 branch. It would be better if we don't
> >>> create a
> >>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a point where we have these systematic issues with
> >>> our
> >>>>>>>> pipeline.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Dan
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Juan José Ramos Cassella
> >>>>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >>>>>>> Email: jra...@pivotal.io
> >>>>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611 <+353%2021%20423%208611>
> >>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066>
> >>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269>
> >>>>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> >>>>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >>>>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> >>>>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> >>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >>>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> >>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> >>>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Juan José Ramos Cassella
> >>>>> Senior Technical Support Engineer
> >>>>> Email: jra...@pivotal.io
> >>>>> Office#: +353 21 4238611
> >>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066
> >>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269
> >>>>> Office Hours: Mon - Thu 08:30 - 17:00 GMT. Fri 08:30 - 16:00 GMT
> >>>>> How to upload artifacts:
> >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/204369073
> >>>>> How to escalate a ticket:
> >>>>> https://support.pivotal.io/hc/en-us/articles/203809556
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [image: support] <https://support.pivotal.io/> [image: twitter]
> >>>>> <https://twitter.com/pivotal> [image: linkedin]
> >>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/3048967> [image: facebook]
> >>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/pivotalsoftware> [image: google plus]
> >>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+Pivotal> [image: youtube]
> >>>>> <
> >>>>
> >>
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAdzTan_eSPScpj2J50ErtzR9ANSzv3kl
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
