Reverting GEODE-5591 results in code that can produce an infinite loop, so I don't feel that's a viable option. I feel as though the code treats bind exceptions as transient occurrences, but my direct experience with them leads me to the opposite conclusion. I don't believe a long wait time is going to change the situation, especially since a TCP timeout scenario can take up to 30 minutes to resolve itself. I believe it is better to fail fast and hard, so I would suggest either failing immediately or a very short timeout, say 5 or 10 seconds at most.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:03 PM Nabarun Nag <n...@apache.org> wrote: > Currently we have a minor issue in the release branch as pointed out by > Barry O. > We will wait till a resolution is figured out for this issue. > > Steps: > 1. create locator > 2. start server --name=server1 --server-port=40404 > 3. start server --name=server2 --server-port=40405 > 4. create gateway-receiver --member=server1 > 5. create gateway-receiver --member=server2 `This gets stuck for 2 minutes` > > Is the 2 minute wait time acceptable? Should we document it? When we revert > GEODE-5591, this issue does not happen. > > Regards > Nabarun Nag > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag <n...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Status Update on release process for 1.7.0 > > - checkPom files are being modified to have version as 1.7.0 instead of > > 1.8.0-SNAPSHOT > > - gradle.properties file has been modified to reflect 1.7.0 as the > version. > > - Version.java has been reverted to remove all changes corresponding to > > 1.8.0 > > - CommandInitializer.java has been reverted to remove changes for 1.8.0 > > - LuceneIndexCommandsJUnitTest.java has been modified to change > > Version.GEODE_180 to GEODE_170 > > - LuceneIndexCommands.java has been modified to change Version.GEODE_180 > > to GEODE_170 > > -TXCommitMessage.java has been modified to change Version.GEODE_180 to > > GEODE_170 > > > > I will be getting in touch with the individual developers to verify my > > changes. > > The branch will be update once we get a green light on these changes. > > > > Still need updates on these tickets: > > > > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg] > > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton] > > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton] > > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen] > > > > These tickets have commits into develop but they are still open with fix > > version as 1.8.0 > > > > Regards > > Nabarun Nag > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:38 PM Dale Emery <dem...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > >> I have resolved GEODE-5254 > >> > >> Dale > >> > >> > On Aug 31, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Nabarun Nag <n...@pivotal.io> wrote: > >> > > >> > Requesting status update on the following JIRA tickets. These tickets > >> have > >> > commits into develop against its name but the status is still open / > >> > unresolved. > >> > > >> > GEODE-5600 - [Patrick Rhomberg] > >> > GEODE-5578 - [Robert Houghton] > >> > GEODE-5492 - [Robert Houghton] > >> > GEODE-5280 - [xiaojian zhou & Biju Kunjummen] > >> > GEODE-5254 - [Dale Emery] > >> > > >> > GEODE-4794 - [Sai] > >> > GEODE-5594 - [Sai] > >> > > >> > Regards > >> > Nabarun Nag > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM Nabarun Nag <n...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> Please continue using 1.7.0 as a fix version in JIRA till the email > >> comes > >> >> in that the 1.7.0 release branch has be cut. > >> >> > >> >> Changing the fixed version for the following tickets to 1.7.0 from > >> 1.8.0 > >> >> as these fixes will be included in the 1.7.0 release > >> >> > >> >> GEODE-5671 > >> >> GEODE-5662 > >> >> GEODE-5660 > >> >> GEODE-5652 > >> >> > >> >> Regards > >> >> Nabarun Nag > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:20 PM Nabarun Nag <n...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> A new feature of get/set cluster config was added as new feature to > >> gfsh. > >> >>> This needs to be added to the documentation. > >> >>> Once this is done, the branch will be ready. > >> >>> > >> >>> Regards > >> >>> Nabarun > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 2:15 PM Alexander Murmann < > >> amurm...@pivotal.io> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> Nabarun, do you still see anything blocking cutting the release at > >> this > >> >>>> point? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Maybe we can even get a pipeline going today? 😳 > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Sai Boorlagadda < > >> >>>> sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com > >> >>>>> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> We can go ahead and cut 1.7 with out GEODE-5338 as I don't have > the > >> >>>> code > >> >>>>> ready. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> GEODE-5594, adds a new flag to enable hostname validation and is > >> >>>> disabled > >> >>>>> by default so we are good with changes that are already merged and > >> >>>>> documentation for GEODE-5594 is ready merged. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Naba, after the branch is cut we should delete windows jobs from > the > >> >>>> branch > >> >>>>> before we create the pipeline for 1.7. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Apologies for holding up the release. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Sai. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018, 10:23 AM Nabarun Nag <n...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> I am waiting on the documentation tickets to get closed before > >> >>>> cutting > >> >>>>> the > >> >>>>>> branch. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Regards > >> >>>>>> Nabarun Nag > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:18 AM Anthony Baker < > aba...@pivotal.io> > >> >>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Perhaps we should cut 1.7.0 without these changes to give us > more > >> >>>> time > >> >>>>> to > >> >>>>>>> review and complete the work. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Thoughts? > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Anthony > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> On Aug 31, 2018, at 8:03 AM, Sai Boorlagadda < > >> >>>>>> sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com> > >> >>>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> I haven't yet merged GEODE-5338. The PR changes the existing > >> >>>> behavior > >> >>>>>> and > >> >>>>>>>> is not acceptable. > >> >>>>>>>> Working on changing the implementation to have a default value > >> >>>>> derived > >> >>>>>>>> based on how user > >> >>>>>>>> wants to configure SSL. > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Sai > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:45 AM Sai Boorlagadda < > >> >>>>>>> sai.boorlaga...@gmail.com> > >> >>>>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> I have merged GEODE-5594 to develop. > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> GEODE-5338 is now waiting for PR review and precheckin. > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> Sai > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> 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> > >> <+353%2021%20423%208611> > >> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611> > >> >>>>>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066> > >> <+353%2087%20207%204066> > >> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066> > >> >>>>>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269> > >> <(877)%20477-2269> > >> >>>> <(877)%20477-2269> > >> >>>>>>> <(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 <+353%2021%20423%208611> > >> <+353%2021%20423%208611> > >> >>>> <+353%2021%20423%208611> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mobile#: +353 87 2074066 <+353%2087%20207%204066> > >> <+353%2087%20207%204066> > >> >>>> <+353%2087%20207%204066> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> After Hours Contact#: +1 877 477 2269 <(877)%20477-2269> > >> <(877)%20477-2269> > >> >>>> <(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 > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> > >> >
