Geode unit tests 'develop/DistributedTest' took too long to execute

[apachegeodeci]

Pipeline results can be found at:

Concourse: 
https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/develop/jobs/DistributedTest/builds/174

Geode unit tests 'develop/FlakyTest' took too long to execute

[apachegeodeci]

Pipeline results can be found at:

Concourse: 
https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/develop/jobs/FlakyTest/builds/276

Geode unit tests completed in 'develop/IntegrationTest' with non-zero exit code

[apachegeodeci]

Pipeline results can be found at:

Concourse: 
https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/develop/jobs/IntegrationTest/builds/249

Re: Next release: 1.5.0

[Swapnil Bawaskar]

Thanks Dave!

All, I have created a release branch (
https://github.com/apache/geode/tree/release/1.5.0) Please review.

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:56 AM Dave Barnes  wrote:

> Status on the 3 doc issues:
> GEODE-4737 / GEODE-3915: JSON args in gfsh - Done
> GEODE-4101:  redirect-output - Done
> GEODE-3948: client timeout - Done
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar 
> wrote:
>
> > I will take up the release management task for 1.5.0
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:03 PM Dave Barnes  wrote:
> >
> > > Status on the 3 doc issues:
> > > GEODE-4737 / GEODE-3915: JSON args in gfsh - Karen's got it covered
> > > GEODE-4101:  redirect-output  - Dave, in process, on track
> > > GEODE-3948: client timeout - Dave, in process. Probably on track - will
> > > keep you posted
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Anthony Baker 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just checking in as we’re approaching the end of February.  We’ve
> > > finished
> > > > around 200 issues and enhancements with 3 documentation updates open
> > [1].
> > > > Is this a good time for another release?
> > > >
> > > > Any takers to do the release management tasks for 1.5.0?
> > > >
> > > > Anthony
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/GEODE/versions/12342395
> <
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/GEODE/versions/12342395>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Feb 7, 2018, at 1:56 PM, Anthony Baker 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > Nice work on getting the 1.4.0 release out the door!  Next up is
> > 1.5.0.
> > > > Any one want to volunteer for release manager?  If you haven’t done
> > this
> > > > before and would like to try, please review [1].
> > > > >
> > > > > I’ve been advocating for more frequent releases.  I’d love see a
> > March
> > > > release—which means we would need to be ready to cut the release
> branch
> > > in
> > > > early March.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Anthony
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Release+Steps?src=
> > > > contextnavpagetreemode <
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/
> > > > Release+Steps?src=contextnavpagetreemode>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

DUnit tests failing in intellij

[Kirk Lund]

If I randomly pick a dunit test that was passing in my intellij a week ago,
I find it failing now and eventually hit a hang.

For example, try running PRBasicIndexCreationDUnitTest.

I git two GREEN tests, three RED tests (caused by SerializationException)
and then it hangs in testCreateIndexFromAccessor.

The SerializationException is pretty difficult to debug... I have no idea
what's going on here (see below).

Knowing that we have this new VALIDATE_SERIALIZABLE_OBJECTS configuration,
I tried adding more properties to this test:

  @Override
  public Properties getDistributedSystemProperties() {
Properties config = new Properties();
config.put(SERIALIZABLE_OBJECT_FILTER,
"org.apache.geode.cache.query.data.*");
config.put(VALIDATE_SERIALIZABLE_OBJECTS, "true");
return config;
  }

But it still fails:

java.lang.AssertionError: An exception occurred during asynchronous
invocation.

at
org.apache.geode.test.dunit.AsyncInvocation.checkException(AsyncInvocation.java:150)
at
org.apache.geode.test.dunit.AsyncInvocation.await(AsyncInvocation.java:343)
at
org.apache.geode.test.dunit.AsyncInvocation.await(AsyncInvocation.java:366)
at
org.apache.geode.cache.query.partitioned.PRBasicIndexCreationDUnitTest.testPartitionedIndexCreationDuringPersistentRecovery(PRBasicIndexCreationDUnitTest.java:470)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
at
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
at
org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:50)
at
org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:12)
at
org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:47)
at
org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:17)
at
org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:26)
at
org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:27)
at org.junit.rules.TestWatcher$1.evaluate(TestWatcher.java:55)
at org.junit.rules.RunRules.evaluate(RunRules.java:20)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runLeaf(ParentRunner.java:325)
at
org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:78)
at
org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:57)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:290)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:71)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:288)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:58)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:268)
at
org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunBefores.evaluate(RunBefores.java:26)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:363)
at org.junit.runner.JUnitCore.run(JUnitCore.java:137)
at
com.intellij.junit4.JUnit4IdeaTestRunner.startRunnerWithArgs(JUnit4IdeaTestRunner.java:68)
at
com.intellij.rt.execution.junit.IdeaTestRunner$Repeater.startRunnerWithArgs(IdeaTestRunner.java:47)
at
com.intellij.rt.execution.junit.JUnitStarter.prepareStreamsAndStart(JUnitStarter.java:242)
at com.intellij.rt.execution.junit.JUnitStarter.main(JUnitStarter.java:70)
Caused by: java.lang.AssertionError: Creating Index in this vm failed :
at org.apache.geode.test.dunit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:66)
at
org.apache.geode.cache.query.partitioned.PRQueryDUnitHelper$26.run2(PRQueryDUnitHelper.java:1726)
at
org.apache.geode.cache30.CacheSerializableRunnable.run(CacheSerializableRunnable.java:54)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
at
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
at hydra.MethExecutor.executeObject(MethExecutor.java:244)
at
org.apache.geode.test.dunit.standalone.RemoteDUnitVM.executeMethodOnObject(RemoteDUnitVM.java:70)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
at
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
at sun.rmi.server.UnicastServerRef.dispatch(UnicastServerRef.java:357)
at sun.rmi.transport.Transport$1.run(Transport.java:200)
at sun.rmi.transport.Transport$1.run(Transport.java:197)
at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
at sun.rmi.transport.Transport.serviceCall(Transport.java:196)
at sun.rmi.transport.tcp.TCPTransport.handleMessages(TCPTransport.java:568)
at
sun.rmi.transport.tcp.TCPTransport$ConnectionHandler.run0(TCPTransport.java:826)
at
sun.rmi.transport.tcp.TCPTransport$ConnectionHandler.lambda$run$0(TCPTransport.java:683)
at java.security.A

Re: Starter tickets

[Patrick Rhomberg]

I don't really think "newbie" has a negative connotation, but then again,
I've been a gamer long enough to see a difference between terms "newb" and
a "n00b."

I do love consistency, though.  (You might even say "consistency is a
must.")

We currently have tickets tagged with "newbie" and its variants, a few
"low-hanging-fruit", one closed "easyfix."

Glancing at other Apache JIRAs, it looks like "starter," "newbie," and
"beginner" are popular.

If anyone knows how the ASF Bot works and has the ability to enforce a
standard, I'd personally love to see us pick one label or another, and have
the bot switch any of those other tags to what we land on.  Which sounds
like it ought to be "starter."  But it defeats the purpose if after this
thread slips from immediate memory, people go back to tagging tickets with
whatever is top of their mind.  Otherwise we'd have to expect new
contributors to know the ump-teen tags that would be a good starting point.

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Joey McAllister 
wrote:

> +1 to "starter" over "newbie." I think the ++ plan makes sense, too.
>
> Thanks for the initiative on this, Alexander. It seems like a very valuable
> effort for the community.
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:35 PM Alexander Murmann 
> wrote:
>
> > I am glad this already revealed that we aren't consistent in what labels
> we
> > are using. I assume the idea of newbie++ was to facilitate a
> progression? I
> > really like that and would love to keep something like that.
> >
> > I don't think the term "newbie" is great. To me it has a little bit of a
> > negative connotation.
> >
> > Does anyone have an issue with adopting "starter" and "starter++"
> > consistently? I am happy to do the conversion work and make sure the
> > communication in the wiki etc. is consistent going forward.
> >
> > Mike, I agree that there is probably a lot of great work that someone who
> > doesn't know the code base well can do in Pulse. I'd suggest that we
> still
> > decide on a case by case basis. A quick glance showed a few bugs that
> > probably should be tackled sooner rather than later. I'll take a pass at
> > all Pulse related tickets and see if they are a good fit.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Michael Stolz 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'd love to tag all the pulse issues as newbie if we could.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Anthony Baker 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Good idea!  We he have a few other labels relevant to this as well:
> > > >
> > > > - newbie
> > > > - low-hanging-fruit
> > > >
> > > > Anthony
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Alexander Murmann <
> amurm...@pivotal.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we could make it easier for people to find tasks that can
> be
> > > > their
> > > > > first contribution to Geode. The wiki page on how to contribute
> > > > >  to+Contribute
> > >
> > > > has a
> > > > > list of suggested projects. Most of those are pretty ambitious and
> > > likely
> > > > > would be overwhelming to first time contributors. There also is a
> > link
> > > > > to tickets
> > > > > labeled with "Starter"
> > > > >  > > > 3D%20Geode%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20starter%20AND%20status%
> > > > 20in%20%28Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%29>.
> > > > > I think the later is probably a much better angle for someone to
> > start
> > > > > contributing to Geode. Unfortunately there was less than a handful
> of
> > > > > tickets labeled as starter tickets.
> > > > >
> > > > > My suggestion is to find tickets that strike a healthy balance
> > between
> > > > being
> > > > >
> > > > >   - simple enough that someone new to the code base can
> realistically
> > > > take
> > > > >   them on
> > > > >   - rewarding enough that someone can feel a sense of
> accomplishment
> > > > after
> > > > >   having their PR merged
> > > > >   - small enough that it can be accomplished in an evening or at
> > most a
> > > > >   long weekend
> > > > >   - unlikely to result in conflicts with larger efforts that
> someone
> > is
> > > > >   already undertaking
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be great to have a variety of tickets that have different
> > > levels
> > > > > of complexity and required effort to allow new contributors of
> > varying
> > > > > experience levels to start contributing meaningfully and maybe even
> > > > support
> > > > > somewhat of a progression curve for someone who wants to become a
> > > regular
> > > > > contributor or even committer.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd also suggest to not allow the list to grow too large. If the
> list
> > > > gets
> > > > > bigger than 20-30 tickets it might get too hard to keep a clear
> grasp
> > > on
> > > > it
> > > > > and the risk of having tickets that aren't relevant anymore
> > increases.
> > > > > Nothing would be more frustrating to a new contributor than
> investin

[Spring CI] Spring Data GemFire > Nightly-ApacheGeode > #844 was SUCCESSFUL (with 2378 tests)

[Spring CI]

---
Spring Data GemFire > Nightly-ApacheGeode > #844 was successful.
---
Scheduled
2380 tests in total.

https://build.spring.io/browse/SGF-NAG-844/





--
This message is automatically generated by Atlassian Bamboo

Re: Starter tickets

[Brian Baynes]

+1  on starter/starter++

It will be nice to already have a group of possibilities to point folks to.


On Mar 2, 2018 2:26 PM, "Kirk Lund"  wrote:

+1 for using starter and starter++

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Joey McAllister 
wrote:

> +1 to "starter" over "newbie." I think the ++ plan makes sense, too.
>
> Thanks for the initiative on this, Alexander. It seems like a very
valuable
> effort for the community.
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:35 PM Alexander Murmann 
> wrote:
>
> > I am glad this already revealed that we aren't consistent in what labels
> we
> > are using. I assume the idea of newbie++ was to facilitate a
> progression? I
> > really like that and would love to keep something like that.
> >
> > I don't think the term "newbie" is great. To me it has a little bit of a
> > negative connotation.
> >
> > Does anyone have an issue with adopting "starter" and "starter++"
> > consistently? I am happy to do the conversion work and make sure the
> > communication in the wiki etc. is consistent going forward.
> >
> > Mike, I agree that there is probably a lot of great work that someone
who
> > doesn't know the code base well can do in Pulse. I'd suggest that we
> still
> > decide on a case by case basis. A quick glance showed a few bugs that
> > probably should be tackled sooner rather than later. I'll take a pass at
> > all Pulse related tickets and see if they are a good fit.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Michael Stolz 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'd love to tag all the pulse issues as newbie if we could.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Anthony Baker 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Good idea!  We he have a few other labels relevant to this as well:
> > > >
> > > > - newbie
> > > > - low-hanging-fruit
> > > >
> > > > Anthony
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Alexander Murmann <
> amurm...@pivotal.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we could make it easier for people to find tasks that can
> be
> > > > their
> > > > > first contribution to Geode. The wiki page on how to contribute
> > > > >  to+Contribute
> > >
> > > > has a
> > > > > list of suggested projects. Most of those are pretty ambitious and
> > > likely
> > > > > would be overwhelming to first time contributors. There also is a
> > link
> > > > > to tickets
> > > > > labeled with "Starter"
> > > > >  > > > 3D%20Geode%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20starter%20AND%20status%
> > > > 20in%20%28Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%29>.
> > > > > I think the later is probably a much better angle for someone to
> > start
> > > > > contributing to Geode. Unfortunately there was less than a handful
> of
> > > > > tickets labeled as starter tickets.
> > > > >
> > > > > My suggestion is to find tickets that strike a healthy balance
> > between
> > > > being
> > > > >
> > > > >   - simple enough that someone new to the code base can
> realistically
> > > > take
> > > > >   them on
> > > > >   - rewarding enough that someone can feel a sense of
> accomplishment
> > > > after
> > > > >   having their PR merged
> > > > >   - small enough that it can be accomplished in an evening or at
> > most a
> > > > >   long weekend
> > > > >   - unlikely to result in conflicts with larger efforts that
> someone
> > is
> > > > >   already undertaking
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be great to have a variety of tickets that have different
> > > levels
> > > > > of complexity and required effort to allow new contributors of
> > varying
> > > > > experience levels to start contributing meaningfully and maybe
even
> > > > support
> > > > > somewhat of a progression curve for someone who wants to become a
> > > regular
> > > > > contributor or even committer.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd also suggest to not allow the list to grow too large. If the
> list
> > > > gets
> > > > > bigger than 20-30 tickets it might get too hard to keep a clear
> grasp
> > > on
> > > > it
> > > > > and the risk of having tickets that aren't relevant anymore
> > increases.
> > > > > Nothing would be more frustrating to a new contributor than
> investing
> > > > their
> > > > > personal time just to find out that it was wasted. So let's be
> > mindful
> > > of
> > > > > not using this as a dumping ground for everything we'd like to
see,
> > but
> > > > > know we'll never get to.
> > > > >
> > > > > I already labeled a few more tickets as starter. Please feel free
> to
> > > > > validate that I didn't violate my own suggestions in doing so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Starter tickets

[Kirk Lund]

+1 for using starter and starter++

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Joey McAllister 
wrote:

> +1 to "starter" over "newbie." I think the ++ plan makes sense, too.
>
> Thanks for the initiative on this, Alexander. It seems like a very valuable
> effort for the community.
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:35 PM Alexander Murmann 
> wrote:
>
> > I am glad this already revealed that we aren't consistent in what labels
> we
> > are using. I assume the idea of newbie++ was to facilitate a
> progression? I
> > really like that and would love to keep something like that.
> >
> > I don't think the term "newbie" is great. To me it has a little bit of a
> > negative connotation.
> >
> > Does anyone have an issue with adopting "starter" and "starter++"
> > consistently? I am happy to do the conversion work and make sure the
> > communication in the wiki etc. is consistent going forward.
> >
> > Mike, I agree that there is probably a lot of great work that someone who
> > doesn't know the code base well can do in Pulse. I'd suggest that we
> still
> > decide on a case by case basis. A quick glance showed a few bugs that
> > probably should be tackled sooner rather than later. I'll take a pass at
> > all Pulse related tickets and see if they are a good fit.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Michael Stolz 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'd love to tag all the pulse issues as newbie if we could.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Anthony Baker 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Good idea!  We he have a few other labels relevant to this as well:
> > > >
> > > > - newbie
> > > > - low-hanging-fruit
> > > >
> > > > Anthony
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Alexander Murmann <
> amurm...@pivotal.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we could make it easier for people to find tasks that can
> be
> > > > their
> > > > > first contribution to Geode. The wiki page on how to contribute
> > > > >  to+Contribute
> > >
> > > > has a
> > > > > list of suggested projects. Most of those are pretty ambitious and
> > > likely
> > > > > would be overwhelming to first time contributors. There also is a
> > link
> > > > > to tickets
> > > > > labeled with "Starter"
> > > > >  > > > 3D%20Geode%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20starter%20AND%20status%
> > > > 20in%20%28Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%29>.
> > > > > I think the later is probably a much better angle for someone to
> > start
> > > > > contributing to Geode. Unfortunately there was less than a handful
> of
> > > > > tickets labeled as starter tickets.
> > > > >
> > > > > My suggestion is to find tickets that strike a healthy balance
> > between
> > > > being
> > > > >
> > > > >   - simple enough that someone new to the code base can
> realistically
> > > > take
> > > > >   them on
> > > > >   - rewarding enough that someone can feel a sense of
> accomplishment
> > > > after
> > > > >   having their PR merged
> > > > >   - small enough that it can be accomplished in an evening or at
> > most a
> > > > >   long weekend
> > > > >   - unlikely to result in conflicts with larger efforts that
> someone
> > is
> > > > >   already undertaking
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be great to have a variety of tickets that have different
> > > levels
> > > > > of complexity and required effort to allow new contributors of
> > varying
> > > > > experience levels to start contributing meaningfully and maybe even
> > > > support
> > > > > somewhat of a progression curve for someone who wants to become a
> > > regular
> > > > > contributor or even committer.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd also suggest to not allow the list to grow too large. If the
> list
> > > > gets
> > > > > bigger than 20-30 tickets it might get too hard to keep a clear
> grasp
> > > on
> > > > it
> > > > > and the risk of having tickets that aren't relevant anymore
> > increases.
> > > > > Nothing would be more frustrating to a new contributor than
> investing
> > > > their
> > > > > personal time just to find out that it was wasted. So let's be
> > mindful
> > > of
> > > > > not using this as a dumping ground for everything we'd like to see,
> > but
> > > > > know we'll never get to.
> > > > >
> > > > > I already labeled a few more tickets as starter. Please feel free
> to
> > > > > validate that I didn't violate my own suggestions in doing so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Starter tickets

[Joey McAllister]

+1 to "starter" over "newbie." I think the ++ plan makes sense, too.

Thanks for the initiative on this, Alexander. It seems like a very valuable
effort for the community.

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:35 PM Alexander Murmann 
wrote:

> I am glad this already revealed that we aren't consistent in what labels we
> are using. I assume the idea of newbie++ was to facilitate a progression? I
> really like that and would love to keep something like that.
>
> I don't think the term "newbie" is great. To me it has a little bit of a
> negative connotation.
>
> Does anyone have an issue with adopting "starter" and "starter++"
> consistently? I am happy to do the conversion work and make sure the
> communication in the wiki etc. is consistent going forward.
>
> Mike, I agree that there is probably a lot of great work that someone who
> doesn't know the code base well can do in Pulse. I'd suggest that we still
> decide on a case by case basis. A quick glance showed a few bugs that
> probably should be tackled sooner rather than later. I'll take a pass at
> all Pulse related tickets and see if they are a good fit.
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Michael Stolz  wrote:
>
> > I'd love to tag all the pulse issues as newbie if we could.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Anthony Baker  wrote:
> >
> > > Good idea!  We he have a few other labels relevant to this as well:
> > >
> > > - newbie
> > > - low-hanging-fruit
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Alexander Murmann 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I think we could make it easier for people to find tasks that can be
> > > their
> > > > first contribution to Geode. The wiki page on how to contribute
> > > >  >
> > > has a
> > > > list of suggested projects. Most of those are pretty ambitious and
> > likely
> > > > would be overwhelming to first time contributors. There also is a
> link
> > > > to tickets
> > > > labeled with "Starter"
> > > >  > > 3D%20Geode%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20starter%20AND%20status%
> > > 20in%20%28Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%29>.
> > > > I think the later is probably a much better angle for someone to
> start
> > > > contributing to Geode. Unfortunately there was less than a handful of
> > > > tickets labeled as starter tickets.
> > > >
> > > > My suggestion is to find tickets that strike a healthy balance
> between
> > > being
> > > >
> > > >   - simple enough that someone new to the code base can realistically
> > > take
> > > >   them on
> > > >   - rewarding enough that someone can feel a sense of accomplishment
> > > after
> > > >   having their PR merged
> > > >   - small enough that it can be accomplished in an evening or at
> most a
> > > >   long weekend
> > > >   - unlikely to result in conflicts with larger efforts that someone
> is
> > > >   already undertaking
> > > >
> > > > It would be great to have a variety of tickets that have different
> > levels
> > > > of complexity and required effort to allow new contributors of
> varying
> > > > experience levels to start contributing meaningfully and maybe even
> > > support
> > > > somewhat of a progression curve for someone who wants to become a
> > regular
> > > > contributor or even committer.
> > > >
> > > > I'd also suggest to not allow the list to grow too large. If the list
> > > gets
> > > > bigger than 20-30 tickets it might get too hard to keep a clear grasp
> > on
> > > it
> > > > and the risk of having tickets that aren't relevant anymore
> increases.
> > > > Nothing would be more frustrating to a new contributor than investing
> > > their
> > > > personal time just to find out that it was wasted. So let's be
> mindful
> > of
> > > > not using this as a dumping ground for everything we'd like to see,
> but
> > > > know we'll never get to.
> > > >
> > > > I already labeled a few more tickets as starter. Please feel free to
> > > > validate that I didn't violate my own suggestions in doing so.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Geode unit tests completed in 'develop/AcceptanceTest' with non-zero exit code

[apachegeodeci]

Pipeline results can be found at:

Concourse: 
https://concourse.apachegeode-ci.info/teams/main/pipelines/develop/jobs/AcceptanceTest/builds/346

Re: Starter tickets

[Alexander Murmann]

I am glad this already revealed that we aren't consistent in what labels we
are using. I assume the idea of newbie++ was to facilitate a progression? I
really like that and would love to keep something like that.

I don't think the term "newbie" is great. To me it has a little bit of a
negative connotation.

Does anyone have an issue with adopting "starter" and "starter++"
consistently? I am happy to do the conversion work and make sure the
communication in the wiki etc. is consistent going forward.

Mike, I agree that there is probably a lot of great work that someone who
doesn't know the code base well can do in Pulse. I'd suggest that we still
decide on a case by case basis. A quick glance showed a few bugs that
probably should be tackled sooner rather than later. I'll take a pass at
all Pulse related tickets and see if they are a good fit.

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Michael Stolz  wrote:

> I'd love to tag all the pulse issues as newbie if we could.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Anthony Baker  wrote:
>
> > Good idea!  We he have a few other labels relevant to this as well:
> >
> > - newbie
> > - low-hanging-fruit
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Alexander Murmann 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I think we could make it easier for people to find tasks that can be
> > their
> > > first contribution to Geode. The wiki page on how to contribute
> > > 
> > has a
> > > list of suggested projects. Most of those are pretty ambitious and
> likely
> > > would be overwhelming to first time contributors. There also is a link
> > > to tickets
> > > labeled with "Starter"
> > >  > 3D%20Geode%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20starter%20AND%20status%
> > 20in%20%28Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%29>.
> > > I think the later is probably a much better angle for someone to start
> > > contributing to Geode. Unfortunately there was less than a handful of
> > > tickets labeled as starter tickets.
> > >
> > > My suggestion is to find tickets that strike a healthy balance between
> > being
> > >
> > >   - simple enough that someone new to the code base can realistically
> > take
> > >   them on
> > >   - rewarding enough that someone can feel a sense of accomplishment
> > after
> > >   having their PR merged
> > >   - small enough that it can be accomplished in an evening or at most a
> > >   long weekend
> > >   - unlikely to result in conflicts with larger efforts that someone is
> > >   already undertaking
> > >
> > > It would be great to have a variety of tickets that have different
> levels
> > > of complexity and required effort to allow new contributors of varying
> > > experience levels to start contributing meaningfully and maybe even
> > support
> > > somewhat of a progression curve for someone who wants to become a
> regular
> > > contributor or even committer.
> > >
> > > I'd also suggest to not allow the list to grow too large. If the list
> > gets
> > > bigger than 20-30 tickets it might get too hard to keep a clear grasp
> on
> > it
> > > and the risk of having tickets that aren't relevant anymore increases.
> > > Nothing would be more frustrating to a new contributor than investing
> > their
> > > personal time just to find out that it was wasted. So let's be mindful
> of
> > > not using this as a dumping ground for everything we'd like to see, but
> > > know we'll never get to.
> > >
> > > I already labeled a few more tickets as starter. Please feel free to
> > > validate that I didn't violate my own suggestions in doing so.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> >
>

Re: Starter tickets

[Michael Stolz]

I'd love to tag all the pulse issues as newbie if we could.



On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Anthony Baker  wrote:

> Good idea!  We he have a few other labels relevant to this as well:
>
> - newbie
> - low-hanging-fruit
>
> Anthony
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Alexander Murmann 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I think we could make it easier for people to find tasks that can be
> their
> > first contribution to Geode. The wiki page on how to contribute
> > 
> has a
> > list of suggested projects. Most of those are pretty ambitious and likely
> > would be overwhelming to first time contributors. There also is a link
> > to tickets
> > labeled with "Starter"
> >  3D%20Geode%20AND%20labels%20%3D%20starter%20AND%20status%
> 20in%20%28Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%29>.
> > I think the later is probably a much better angle for someone to start
> > contributing to Geode. Unfortunately there was less than a handful of
> > tickets labeled as starter tickets.
> >
> > My suggestion is to find tickets that strike a healthy balance between
> being
> >
> >   - simple enough that someone new to the code base can realistically
> take
> >   them on
> >   - rewarding enough that someone can feel a sense of accomplishment
> after
> >   having their PR merged
> >   - small enough that it can be accomplished in an evening or at most a
> >   long weekend
> >   - unlikely to result in conflicts with larger efforts that someone is
> >   already undertaking
> >
> > It would be great to have a variety of tickets that have different levels
> > of complexity and required effort to allow new contributors of varying
> > experience levels to start contributing meaningfully and maybe even
> support
> > somewhat of a progression curve for someone who wants to become a regular
> > contributor or even committer.
> >
> > I'd also suggest to not allow the list to grow too large. If the list
> gets
> > bigger than 20-30 tickets it might get too hard to keep a clear grasp on
> it
> > and the risk of having tickets that aren't relevant anymore increases.
> > Nothing would be more frustrating to a new contributor than investing
> their
> > personal time just to find out that it was wasted. So let's be mindful of
> > not using this as a dumping ground for everything we'd like to see, but
> > know we'll never get to.
> >
> > I already labeled a few more tickets as starter. Please feel free to
> > validate that I didn't violate my own suggestions in doing so.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
>

Re: Starter tickets

[Anthony Baker]

Good idea!  We he have a few other labels relevant to this as well:

- newbie
- low-hanging-fruit

Anthony


> On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Alexander Murmann  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I think we could make it easier for people to find tasks that can be their
> first contribution to Geode. The wiki page on how to contribute
>  has a
> list of suggested projects. Most of those are pretty ambitious and likely
> would be overwhelming to first time contributors. There also is a link
> to tickets
> labeled with "Starter"
> .
> I think the later is probably a much better angle for someone to start
> contributing to Geode. Unfortunately there was less than a handful of
> tickets labeled as starter tickets.
> 
> My suggestion is to find tickets that strike a healthy balance between being
> 
>   - simple enough that someone new to the code base can realistically take
>   them on
>   - rewarding enough that someone can feel a sense of accomplishment after
>   having their PR merged
>   - small enough that it can be accomplished in an evening or at most a
>   long weekend
>   - unlikely to result in conflicts with larger efforts that someone is
>   already undertaking
> 
> It would be great to have a variety of tickets that have different levels
> of complexity and required effort to allow new contributors of varying
> experience levels to start contributing meaningfully and maybe even support
> somewhat of a progression curve for someone who wants to become a regular
> contributor or even committer.
> 
> I'd also suggest to not allow the list to grow too large. If the list gets
> bigger than 20-30 tickets it might get too hard to keep a clear grasp on it
> and the risk of having tickets that aren't relevant anymore increases.
> Nothing would be more frustrating to a new contributor than investing their
> personal time just to find out that it was wasted. So let's be mindful of
> not using this as a dumping ground for everything we'd like to see, but
> know we'll never get to.
> 
> I already labeled a few more tickets as starter. Please feel free to
> validate that I didn't violate my own suggestions in doing so.
> 
> Thoughts?

Starter tickets

[Alexander Murmann]

Hi all,

I think we could make it easier for people to find tasks that can be their
first contribution to Geode. The wiki page on how to contribute
 has a
list of suggested projects. Most of those are pretty ambitious and likely
would be overwhelming to first time contributors. There also is a link
to tickets
labeled with "Starter"
.
I think the later is probably a much better angle for someone to start
contributing to Geode. Unfortunately there was less than a handful of
tickets labeled as starter tickets.

My suggestion is to find tickets that strike a healthy balance between being

   - simple enough that someone new to the code base can realistically take
   them on
   - rewarding enough that someone can feel a sense of accomplishment after
   having their PR merged
   - small enough that it can be accomplished in an evening or at most a
   long weekend
   - unlikely to result in conflicts with larger efforts that someone is
   already undertaking

It would be great to have a variety of tickets that have different levels
of complexity and required effort to allow new contributors of varying
experience levels to start contributing meaningfully and maybe even support
somewhat of a progression curve for someone who wants to become a regular
contributor or even committer.

I'd also suggest to not allow the list to grow too large. If the list gets
bigger than 20-30 tickets it might get too hard to keep a clear grasp on it
and the risk of having tickets that aren't relevant anymore increases.
Nothing would be more frustrating to a new contributor than investing their
personal time just to find out that it was wasted. So let's be mindful of
not using this as a dumping ground for everything we'd like to see, but
know we'll never get to.

I already labeled a few more tickets as starter. Please feel free to
validate that I didn't violate my own suggestions in doing so.

Thoughts?

Re: Spring for Apache Geode Announcements...

[Udo Kohlmeyer]

Nice work!!!

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:55 PM, John Blum  wrote:

> Greetings Apache Geode Community-
>
> It is my pleasure to follow-up with several announcements and releases
> concerning the Apache Geode ecosystem from the Spring portfolio.
>
>
> 1. First, we moved 2 versions since my last announcement [1] to *Spring
> Data for Apache Geode* *2.0.5.RELEASE* (*Kay-SR5*).
>
> 1.1. The official release announcement is here [2].
>
> 1.2. See the changelog [3] for additional details.  Specifically look at
> the changes in versions 2.0.4.RELEASE and 2.0.5.RELEASE.
>
> 1.3. One of the more interesting changes to SDG is the ability to register
> QueryPostProcessors to process (OQL) queries generated from *Repository*
> query methods when using the convention. See SDG's Reference Documentation
> for more information [4].
>
>
> 2. Second, we have already released our first milestone for *Spring Data*
> *Lovelace* [5], which, of course, includes *Spring Data for Apache Geode*
> *2.1.0.M1*.  You may remember [6], I have many things planned this year
> for the next few versions of *Spring Data for Apache Geode*.
>
>
> 3. Third, *Spring Session for Apache Geode* has also jumped to versions
> since my last announcement [7] to *2.0.2.RELEASE*.  This release
> primarily consist of version updates and is based on *Spring Session core*
> 2.0.2.RELEASE.
>
>
> 4. Lastly, it was just announced [8] that *Spring Boot 2.0* went GA, so
> is now at version *2.0.0.RELEASE*.  \o/  .oO(Yay!)
>
> It's been a long haul but the timing is perfect since I am only a few
> weeks away from releasing the first milestone of *Spring Boot for Apache
> Geode*.  I have been making good progress on this project [9] and I
> essentially have only testing, documentation and examples left to complete.
>
> * Of course, it will be based on the newly minted *Spring Boot*
> 2.0.0.RELEASE, and will cover many things, such as, but not limited to,
> providing an auto-configured ClientCache instance OOTB that will
> automatically authenticate when you push your *Spring Boot*, ClientCache
> apps to PCF when interfacing to PCC.
>
> * Using Apache Geode as a caching provider in *Spring's Cache Abstraction*
> will be enabled by default as will SDG *Repositories*.
>
> * PDX is the default serialization format and there will be NO need to
> explicitly register a PdxSerializer to identify and serialize your
> application domain object types; it will just work as it should!
>
> * Annotated Continuous Query Listener, POJO-based method callbacks will be
> enabled by default; so just start by declaring your CQs and you will
> receive events. Remember this wicked cool feature [10].  Example here [11].
>
> * Interface-based Function Executions are also enabled by default.  Just
> declare your Apache Geode Functions using an interface and SDG combined
> with the new *Spring Boot* support will handle the rest.  You just invoke
> your Function like any other POJO method, in a clean and Object-Oriented
> way!
>
>
> So many exciting things planned in *Spring Boot for Apache Geode*, I look
> forward to rolling this out soon and getting your feedback.  Stay tuned!
>
> Well, that is all for now folks.
>
>
> Regards,
> --
> -John
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/mhdsrml6ixhggecj
> [2] https://spring.io/blog/2018/02/28/spring-data-kay-sr5-released
> [3] https://docs.spring.io/spring-data/geode/docs/2.0.5.
> RELEASE/changelog.txt
> [4] https://docs.spring.io/spring-data/geode/docs/current/reference/html/#
> gemfire-repositories.queries.post-processing
> [5] https://spring.io/blog/2018/02/06/spring-data-lovelace-m1-released
> [6] http://markmail.org/message/cneo6dhl6tvu2ib5
> [7] http://markmail.org/message/ssk5jgoh344cyf54?q=
> list:org%2Eapache%2Egeode%2Euser+order:date-backward+
> from:%22John+Blum%22&page=1
> [8] https://spring.io/blog/2018/03/01/spring-boot-2-0-goes-ga
> [9] https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-boot-data-geode
> [10] https://docs.spring.io/spring-data/geode/docs/
> current/reference/html/#bootstrap-annotation-config-continuous-queries
> [11] https://github.com/jxblum/contacts-application/
> tree/master/continuous-query-example
>
>

Re: Next release: 1.5.0

[Dave Barnes]

Status on the 3 doc issues:
GEODE-4737 / GEODE-3915: JSON args in gfsh - Done
GEODE-4101:  redirect-output - Done
GEODE-3948: client timeout - Done


On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Swapnil Bawaskar 
wrote:

> I will take up the release management task for 1.5.0
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:03 PM Dave Barnes  wrote:
>
> > Status on the 3 doc issues:
> > GEODE-4737 / GEODE-3915: JSON args in gfsh - Karen's got it covered
> > GEODE-4101:  redirect-output  - Dave, in process, on track
> > GEODE-3948: client timeout - Dave, in process. Probably on track - will
> > keep you posted
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Anthony Baker 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Just checking in as we’re approaching the end of February.  We’ve
> > finished
> > > around 200 issues and enhancements with 3 documentation updates open
> [1].
> > > Is this a good time for another release?
> > >
> > > Any takers to do the release management tasks for 1.5.0?
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/GEODE/versions/12342395 <
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/GEODE/versions/12342395>
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Feb 7, 2018, at 1:56 PM, Anthony Baker  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Nice work on getting the 1.4.0 release out the door!  Next up is
> 1.5.0.
> > > Any one want to volunteer for release manager?  If you haven’t done
> this
> > > before and would like to try, please review [1].
> > > >
> > > > I’ve been advocating for more frequent releases.  I’d love see a
> March
> > > release—which means we would need to be ready to cut the release branch
> > in
> > > early March.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Anthony
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/Release+Steps?src=
> > > contextnavpagetreemode <
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/
> > > Release+Steps?src=contextnavpagetreemode>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>