Re: Propose fix for 1.10 release: Prevent NPE in getLocalSize()

Given that we’re trying to stabilize the release branch and this fix seems to *help* that I’m in favor of merging it. Anthony > On Aug 13, 2019, at 5:32 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote: > > @Aaron, is this an existing issue (i.e this was not introduced in a current > refactor)? > > If the answer

Re: Propose fix for 1.10 release: Prevent NPE in getLocalSize()

Hi Aaron, thank you for bringing your request and concern. Geode's release process dictates a time-based schedule to cut release branches. Once cut, the “critical fixes” rule does allow those to be brought to the release branch by proposal on the dev list. If there is consensus from the Geode

Re: Propose fix for 1.10 release: Prevent NPE in getLocalSize()

@Aaron, is this an existing issue (i.e this was not introduced in a current refactor)? If the answer is anything other that "This will make the system stop working", I would vote: -1 If this is an existing issue and has been around for a while, I think we hold off including this. I think

Propose fix for 1.10 release: Prevent NPE in getLocalSize()

I’d like to propose including https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3913/commits/6f1814d1f719cc06b13769c40a9d6d01f99f927c in the Geode 1.10 release. This commit fixes an issue where a

Re: Failing LGTM Check

LGTM confirmed this is a recent issue on their end that they are currently addressing. https://discuss.lgtm.com/t/analysis-failed-in-github-pr-integration/2251 -Jake > On Aug 13, 2019, at 1:48 PM, Aaron Lindsey wrote: > > My PR has a LGTM check that shows “Failing” on the PR and LGTM site,

Re: Draft of Apache Geode Quarterly Report (Aug 2019) for your review

Thanks for the suggestion, Anthony. I harvested the following subjects from the Dev list archive based on number of entries, and weeding out a few house-keeping topics. Here's what we added to the report, which was submitted to the board this afternoon: - Topics of discussion included: -

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

Sorry, corrections below... On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 1:54 PM John Blum wrote: > Stated slightly a different way... > > If *SBDG 1.2 *were to be (re)based on *Apache Geode 1.10* directly, then > it would *defy* the dependency on Apache Geode pulled in by SDG Moore/2.2 > (which is and can only be

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

Stated slightly a different way... If *SBDG 1.2 *were to be (re)based on *Apache Geode 1.10* directly, then it would *defy* the dependency on Apache Geode pulled in by SDG Moore/2.2 (which is and can only be Geode 1.9) for which SBDG is also based, along with Spring Boot 2.2, which pulls in SD

Re: Failing LGTM Check

I have a ticket open with LGTM on this issue. Just ignore it and move forward. > On Aug 13, 2019, at 1:48 PM, Aaron Lindsey wrote: > > My PR has a LGTM check that shows “Failing” on the PR and LGTM site, but the > LGTM logs say “Succeeded”: > Failing PR check:

Failing LGTM Check

My PR has a LGTM check that shows “Failing” on the PR and LGTM site, but the LGTM logs say “Succeeded”: Failing PR check: https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/3913/checks Failing check on LGTM site:

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

For clarification... 1. SBDG 1.1 is the "*current*" development line (on master [1]); SBDG 1.2 is *not* yet

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

Thanks, Udo. +1 for doing a 1.9.1 patch release, assuming there is enough time for SBDG to include it in their 1.2.x line. - Aaron > On Aug 13, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Udo Kohlmeyer wrote: > > No, 1.9.1 IS something we require. SBDG 1.2 CAN use 1.9.1, we'd have to wait > for SBDG 1.3 to use

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

No, 1.9.1 IS something we require. SBDG 1.2 CAN use 1.9.1, we'd have to wait for SBDG 1.3 to use 1.10 or 1.11 SBDG 1.3 is still a few months off, so maybe getting critical fixes in patch versions is required. On 8/13/19 11:26 AM, Kirk Lund wrote: Udo, Thanks for the info! Sounds like we

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

This would then imply a SBDG 1.2.1 to include Geode 1.9.1. On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 11:55 AM Anthony Baker wrote: > I think there’s value is doing a 1.9.1 patch release to support Spring > users. > > Anthony > > > > On Aug 13, 2019, at 11:26 AM, Kirk Lund wrote: > > > > Udo, Thanks for the

Re: Draft of Apache Geode Quarterly Report (Aug 2019) for your review

I think you could call out a number of interesting discussions that happened on the dev list: - CFP process - Criteria for being a committer - etc Anthony > On Aug 12, 2019, at 4:26 PM, Dave Barnes wrote: > > Thanks, Aaron - good catch. > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:09 PM Aaron Lindsey

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

+1 On 8/13/19 11:55 AM, Anthony Baker wrote: I think there’s value is doing a 1.9.1 patch release to support Spring users. Anthony On Aug 13, 2019, at 11:26 AM, Kirk Lund wrote: Udo, Thanks for the info! Sounds like we shouldn't bother with Geode 1.9.1 then. If I'm misinterpreting what

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

I think there’s value is doing a 1.9.1 patch release to support Spring users. Anthony > On Aug 13, 2019, at 11:26 AM, Kirk Lund wrote: > > Udo, Thanks for the info! Sounds like we shouldn't bother with Geode 1.9.1 > then. If I'm misinterpreting what you wrote, let me know. > > On Tue, Aug

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

Udo, Thanks for the info! Sounds like we shouldn't bother with Geode 1.9.1 then. If I'm misinterpreting what you wrote, let me know. On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:36 AM Udo Kohlmeyer wrote: > The latest version of SBDG 1.2 is already in RC stage. Which means the > dependent Geode version cannot be

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

The latest version of SBDG 1.2 is already in RC stage. Which means the dependent Geode version cannot be changed any more. Currently SBDG 1.2 is based on Geode 1.9. This will not change. Patch versions to 1.9 are supported, but not changes to 1.10 or later. THUS, Once SBDG 1.3 (Neuman) is

Re: Fix for NPE during forceDisconnect candidate for 1.10.0

+1 On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 6:03 PM Aaron Lindsey wrote: > +1 > > > On Aug 13, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Kirk Lund wrote: > > > > I guess we need at least one more vote to get this fix copied to the > 1.10.0 > > release branch. We just confirmed that this fix is NOT on that branch > yet. > > > > On

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

Assuming Geode 1.10 is released with the three logging fixes in Kirk’s message, can the next GA release of Spring Boot Data Geode consume 1.10 instead of 1.9? Also, when would SBDG need this patch release by (whether we do a 1.9.1 release or 1.10 release)? - Aaron > On Aug 13, 2019, at 9:31

Re: Fix for NPE during forceDisconnect candidate for 1.10.0

+1 > On Aug 13, 2019, at 9:59 AM, Kirk Lund wrote: > > I guess we need at least one more vote to get this fix copied to the 1.10.0 > release branch. We just confirmed that this fix is NOT on that branch yet. > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:03 AM Juan José Ramos wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Thu,

Re: Fix for NPE during forceDisconnect candidate for 1.10.0

I guess we need at least one more vote to get this fix copied to the 1.10.0 release branch. We just confirmed that this fix is NOT on that branch yet. On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:03 AM Juan José Ramos wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:02 PM John Blum wrote: > > > +1 for Kirk's changes in

Re: [DISCUSS] Geode dependency update process (review by 8/28/2019)

We can simply update all dependencies to their latest as long as within a major it doesn’t change the public API. We have tried to do this after releases, though sometimes that PR languishes for a while. There is no formal process though so formalizing it would be great. The release manager

Re: [DISCUSS] Geode dependency update process (review by 8/28/2019)

I like the idea of proactively updating dependencies after each release. For this to work we would have to know whether the next release will be a major or minor release directly after each GA release (so that we can bump either major or minor versions, as appropriate). How and when do we

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

If we release a 1.9.1 I'd like to include the SSL/NIO fix. Cluster SSL communications with conserve-sockets=false is currently broken in 1.9. On 8/13/19 9:25 AM, Kirk Lund wrote: I'd like to discuss if and how we can release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements. This is primarily to provide a

[DISCUSS] Release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements

I'd like to discuss if and how we can release Geode 1.9.1 with logging improvements. This is primarily to provide a patch release for Spring Data Geode and Spring Boot to ensure a smoother User experience out-of-the box. They have very near-future releases that need this as soon as possible. The

[DISCUSS] Geode dependency update process (review by 8/28/2019)

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/%5BDraft%5D+Geode+dependency+update+process Here is the content of the wiki proposal above for a discussion: Problem We recently updated the dependencies for the log4j version used in Geode to keep up with Spring Boot Data Geode's logging