Building docs with bookbinder

If anyone is building docs with bookbinder and is getting version mismatch complaints, I found this very helpful. There’s a component named haml whose default version doesn’t play nicely with middleman. Here’s the magic Gemfile entry that fixes the issue: source 'http://rubygems.org' gem

Re: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews)

+1 to Anthony's suggestion. On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 11:59 AM Joris Melchior wrote: > +1 to Anthony’s suggestion. > > From: Anthony Baker > Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 12:34 PM > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject: CODEOWNERS? (was Re: Pending PR reviews) > ⚠ External Email > > I realize

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.15.0.RC1

+1 Docs: - Built and viewed the Geode User Guide using dev-tools docker-based script, also manually-invoked bookbinder. Verified correct versioning. - Viewed API docs & verified correct version in page headers. - Built and viewed Native Client user guides for .NET framework and C++ using

Re: [PROPOSAL] Relocate Geode Docs from code repo to seperate repo

t go hand by > hand, how will we know? > > Alberto > ____ > From: Dave Barnes > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 11:06 PM > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Relocate Geode Docs from code repo to seperate repo > > Adopting

Re: [PROPOSAL] Relocate Geode Docs from code repo to seperate repo

gt; > Would committers to Geode and Geode-docs be the same after this proposed > change? > > Joris Melchior > > From: Dave Barnes > Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 3:14 PM > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject: [PROPOSAL] Relocate Geode Docs from code repo to s

Re: [PROPOSAL] Relocate Geode Docs from code repo to seperate repo

er necessary, anyone should feel free to file blocker tickets for > missing/incorrect docs to ensure the release does not ship prematurely > without meeting Geode’s standard of documentation. > [1] https://geode.apache.org/docs/ > > From: Dave Barnes > Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 3:11

Re: [PROPOSAL] Relocate Geode Docs from code repo to seperate repo

fferent. > > This sounds more like a process problem and a workaround to a broken > process, to me. > > $0.02 > -John > > > From: Dave Barnes > Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 12:15 PM > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject: [PROPOSAL] Relocate Geode Docs

[PROPOSAL] Relocate Geode Docs from code repo to seperate repo

and release, so removal of the doc sources from the Geode code repo should be painless for developers. Observations and opinions welcome... Dave Barnes

Re: [discuss] Future of the geode-redis module

I regularly contribute to the documentation, and I support this change. Removal of the experimental Redis module would lighten the burden for those who maintain the Geode documentation. On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 10:39 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > Well said, Donal. > > As a past Release Manager,

Re: [Suspected Spam] [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.14.4.RC1

+1 Docs Binary release contains correctly-versioned javadocs Source release builds user guide correctly from command line and docker script On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 3:19 PM Dan Smith wrote: > +1 > > Ran smoketest_rc.sh > > -Dan > > From: Eric Shu > Sent:

Re: [Suspected Spam] [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.12.9.RC1

+1 docs are good - Binary distribution contains properly-versioned javadocs - Built user guide from source distribution by manual entry and by scripted docker utility On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:22 AM Dan Smith wrote: > +1 > > > * Ran smoketest_rc - >

Re: [DRAFT] Apache Geode Board report due by Wed Feb 9th

LGTM +1 On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 12:50 PM Nabarun Nag wrote: > This is a draft of our report to the board. Please let me know if there > are details you'd like me to add! > > --Naba > > ## Description: > The mission of Apache Geode is the creation and maintenance of software > related > to a

Re: [Suspected Spam] [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.14.3.RC1

+1 docs binary distribution contains API docs with correct version header source distribution provides working script for building & previewing user guide On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 9:06 AM Donal Evans wrote: > +1 > > Confirmed that performance across a variety of workloads is on par with >

Re: [Suspected Spam] [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.13.7.RC1

+1 Checked docs: source release: - Built user guide with dev-tools script - Verified that the latest version of log4j is correctly referenced in the Logging section binary release: - verified that API docs have correct version header. On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 4:50 PM Kirk Lund wrote: > +1 same

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.12.8.RC1

+1 from a docs standpoint. In the source distribution, successfully built the user guide using the dev-tools/docker/docs/preview-user-guide.sh script. In the binary distribution, viewed the javadocs and verified correct version headers. On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 3:34 PM Dick Cavender wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.12.5.RC1

+1 docs check out: javadocs, user guide (manual build), user guide (script build) On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 4:33 PM Dick Cavender wrote: > Hello Geode Dev Community, > > This is a release candidate for Apache Geode version 1.12.5.RC4. > Earlier RC1, RC2 and RC3 had issues. > Thanks to all the

Re: Requesting eligibility for JIRA ticket assignment

+1 Kaustubh's contribution was a good one. On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 8:26 AM Kaustubh Maske Patil wrote: > Hi, > I recently made my first contribution to apache/geode on ticket GEODE-9619 > and would like to request eligibility for assignment to that ticket, and > hopefully more in the future :)

Fwd: [jira] [Commented] (GEODE-6402) Create a DOAP file for the Apache Geode project

che Geode project > --- > > Key: GEODE-6402 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-6402 > Project: Geode > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: docs >

Re: Odg: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.14.0.RC2

+1 docs - Verified API docs - Built Geode User Guide using script, verified - Built Geode Native User Guides (C++, .NET) using script, verified On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 12:51 AM Mario Kevo wrote: > +1 > > > * build from the source > * run gfsh > * run geode-examples > >

Re: Questions about conserve-sockets and WAN replication

Alberto Gomez wrote: > @Dave Barnes<mailto:dav...@vmware.com>, sorry for not having answered to > your e-mail before. > > I am missing the following in the referred documentation: > > * State that conserve-sockets must be set to false for members that > part

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.13.4.RC1

+1 docs Built the user guide, by hand and with preview script. Verified correct version string in javadocs. On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 3:43 PM Donal Evans wrote: > +1 > > Confirmed that performance across a variety of workloads is on par with > previous releases. >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.12.4.RC1

+1 for geode docs - Checked API docs (javadocs) for correct version in page headers - Successfully ran user guide build script +0 for geode-native docs +0 for geode-examples - For these last two, the build scripts are known to be broken, in the first case due to a Bookbinder problem and in the

Re: Questions about conserve-sockets and WAN replication

Alberto, I recently updated some of the descriptions regarding conserve-sockets. Please check out this PR and see if it addresses any of your concerns. https://github.com/apache/geode/pull/6516 On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 9:57 AM Alberto Gomez wrote: > Hi, > > The Geode documentation states the

Re: [Suspected Spam] [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.12.3.RC3

+1 User Guide build scripts are broken, but this is a known bug and should not delay the release. A compiled 1.12 User Guide is available on the website, and a knowledgeable user can build manually as a workaround. I have back-ported the fix to 1.12 from 1.13, so in the event of a new release

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.13.3.RC2

+1 user guide build script works as it should. On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 4:45 PM Robert Houghton wrote: > +1 > I like the build. I verified the output of the RC check jobs, and matched > against the source SHA we are trying to publish. > > > From: Owen Nichols > Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 at

Re: [NOTICE] Git web site publishing to be done via .asf.yaml only as of July 1st

We're on the green list -- we've been compliant since Oct 2019. On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 8:08 AM Anthony Baker wrote: > I believe we will need to update the geode-site repo. > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Daniel Gruno > Date: May 31, 2021 at 7:41:05 AM MDT > To: Users > Subject:

Apache Geode Board Report, May 2021

This is the final report as published to the Apache Board Agenda: ## Description: The mission of Apache Geode is the creation and maintenance of software related to a data management platform that provides real-time, consistent access to data-intensive applications throughout widely distributed

[DRAFT] Geode Board Report

This is a review draft of our report to the Apache Board on the Geode project. Please send me your feedback by Monday, May 10. In particular, let me know if I omitted any publications or community outreach efforts. Thanks, Dave ## Description: The mission of Apache Geode is the creation and

Re: [Suspected Spam] [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.12.2.RC1

+1 Built and reviewed User Guide and API docs. LGTM. On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:43 PM Donal Evans wrote: > +1 > > Confirmed that performance in multiple scenarios is on par with the > previous 1.12 release. > > From: Owen Nichols > Sent: Wednesday, April 14,

Re: Deleting old references to ticket numbers and avoiding new ones

I STRONGLY AGREE with avoiding Jira ticket numbers in code comments. In an open-source system, code comments function as user-visible documentation (whether or not they're flagged for inclusion in the Javadocs), so rather than resorting to a ticket number in place of an explanation, provide the

Re: [DISCUSS] removal of experimental Protobuf client/server interface

For the record, docs impact is negligible. Protobuf was never documented in the User Guides, and mentions in the API docs will disappear when those are re-built along with the software. On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:55 AM Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > Yes, that's a Go client for Geode. I have already

Re: [Suspected Spam] [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.13.2.RC1

+1 docs: - Binary distribution contains javadocs with correctly-versioned header (1.13.2). - Source distribution contains user guide sources that build successfully and are correctly versioned. (did not test geode-native source) On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 1:45 PM Donal Evans wrote: > +1 > >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.12.1.RC4

+1 Docs. - Geode API docs header correctly updated to 1.12.1 - User guide build scripts generated correct 1.12.1 manual - Native client user guides built correctly - Native client api docs not tested -- they're generated by the full software build, so I assume they're OK. We publish only the

Re: Geode Quarterly Report DRAFT for your review

at 4:17 PM Mark Hanson wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Does the 110 committers number include PMC members? If so, that 2:1 > doesn't line up. It would be more like 1:1. > > Thanks, > Mark > > On 2/8/21, 12:13 PM, "Dave Barnes" wrote: > > Revised C

Re: Geode Quarterly Report DRAFT for your review

Revised Committer-to-PMC ratio to 2:1 (thanks, Karen) On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 12:09 PM Dave Barnes wrote: > Please respond by noon (PT) Tuesday. Thanks! > > ## Description: > > The mission of Apache Geode is the creation and maintenance of software > related > > to a

Geode Quarterly Report DRAFT for your review

Please respond by noon (PT) Tuesday. Thanks! ## Description: The mission of Apache Geode is the creation and maintenance of software related to a data management platform that provides real-time, consistent access to data-intensive applications throughout widely distributed cloud

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.13.1.RC2

+1 Docs review - Built user guides for geode and geode-native using the provided Docker scripts. - Opened the pre-built Geode javadocs in the binary distro. Everything worked and looked as it should. NOTE: The javadocs are branded "1.13.1" but the User Guides are still "1.13". I

Re: Apache Geode 1.13.1 patch proposal

I volunteer to update the Geode website, when the time arrives. On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:43 PM Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > +1 > > I'll have a couple of PRs that I'll want to backport next week. > > On 11/12/20, 11:01 AM, "Dick Cavender" wrote: > > It's been two months since the 1.13.0

Re: Short how-to on running a geode cluster in docker containers

Excellent work, Jens. Thanks! On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 2:23 PM Jens Deppe wrote: > I recently had the need to run a geode cluster in docker containers and > thought my findings and script might be useful. I’ve created a wiki page > here: >

Re: Please review and contribute: draft of Nov 2020 Apache board report

LGTM On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:36 AM Alberto Gomez wrote: > Hi Karen, > > According to the membership data I'd say the Committer-to-PMC ratio is > closer to 2:1 than to 7:4. > > Alberto > > From: Karen Miller > Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 8:25 PM > To:

Re: Utilizing GitHub .CODEOWNERS files

If 'docs' can be identified as a separate code area, then add my name to the experimental owners' list. On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 2:11 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > I'd be happy to volunteer as well > > On 10/30/20, 2:10 PM, "Dan Smith" wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > Seems like a reasonable

Re: PR process and etiquette

Here's a common use case that we should address: A single PR may require two reviews, one for code and another for docs, before it can be said to be fully reviewed and ready to merge. Points to consider: - Many PRs, especially those introducing new features or user-settable properties,

Re: Clean C++ client metadata in timeouts

> happens. If we've failed the handshake, it's very unlikely things will > correct themselves without outside intervention, so this fix is probably > goodness. I'd go ahead and submit a PR when you think it's solid. > > Thanks, > > Blake > > > On 9/17/20, 9:36 AM

Re: Clean C++ client metadata in timeouts

Alberto, Are there cases in which one or two timeouts are followed by a successful retry? Or does one timeout *always* end with more timeouts and, ultimately, an IO error? If timeouts can sometimes be followed by successful retries, and re-trying is the current default behavior, then I agree that

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Geode 1.13.0

We would like to thank all the contributors that made the release possible. Regards, Dave Barnes on behalf of the Apache Geode team

Re: Geode 1.13 RC1 accepted

Good advice, Bruce. Thanks for the +1. On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 9:53 AM Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > I missed the vote but am okay with it. Maybe not start a 3-day vote on a > holiday next time? > > On 9/9/20, 3:49 PM, "Dave Barnes" wrote: > > It's past the an

[DISCUSS] Someone to update 3rd-party libraries used by Geode

have time to shake out issues before the next release. Regards, Dave Barnes on behalf of the Apache Geode Team

Geode 1.13 RC1 accepted

It's past the announced deadline and we have closed the vote with a successful result. Voting status == +1 10 votes (*=PMC member, 'binding' vote) Aaron Lindsey Dave Barnes* Jens Deppe* Jinmei Liao* John Blum* Mike Martell Nabarun Nag* Owen Nichols Patrick Johnson Sarah Abbey

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode 1.13.0.RC1

in Jira is accurate, and checked that the RC1 tag shows > as "Verified" in github. > > On 9/7/20, 8:23 PM, "Dave Barnes" wrote: > > Hello Geode Dev Community, > > > This is a release candidate for Apache Geode version 1.13.0.RC1. > >

[VOTE] Apache Geode 1.13.0.RC1

/geode/blob/develop/KEYS Command to run geode-examples: ./gradlew -PgeodeReleaseUrl= https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/geode/1.13.0.RC1 -PgeodeRepositoryUrl= https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachegeode-1069 build runAll Regards Dave Barnes

Re: [PROPOSAL] Backport GEODE-8475 to 1.13

Yes, Gester - thanks. > On Sep 2, 2020, at 3:04 PM, Owen Nichols wrote: > > +1, looking forward to getting this backported as soon as possible today! > > On 9/2/20, 2:34 PM, "Eric Shu" wrote: > >+1 > > >From: Dick Cavender >Sent: Wednesday,

Re: [PROPOSAL] port GEODE-8467 to support/1.13

upport/1.13 > > +1 > ________ > From: Dave Barnes > Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 10:25 AM > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] port GEODE-8467 to support/1.13 > > > Assuming that it's passed applicable testing AND GETS AT

Re: [PROPOSAL] port GEODE-8467 to support/1.13

> Assuming that it's passed applicable testing AND GETS AT LEAST 3 VOTES, let's do it. On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 10:24 AM Dave Barnes wrote: > +1 > GEODE-8467 addresses one of the few remaining 1.13 release blockers. > I see it's been approved and merged into the develop bran

Re: [PROPOSAL] port GEODE-8467 to support/1.13

+1 GEODE-8467 addresses one of the few remaining 1.13 release blockers. I see it's been approved and merged into the develop branch. Assuming that it's passed applicable testing, let's do it. On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 7:37 AM Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > I’d like to cherry-pick this change into

Re: Proposal to bring GEODE-8456 (shiro upgrade) to support branches

Looks like more than enough approvals, Owen. Please port, as you proposed. Thanks, Dave On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 7:45 AM Alexander Murmann wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 6:19 AM Sarah Abbey wrote: > > > +1 > > > > From: Ju@N > > Sent: Tuesday, September

Re: [PROPOSAL] Backport GEODE-8432 to 1.13

Thanks for your contribution, Gester On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 12:37 PM Joris Melchior wrote: > +1 > > On 2020-08-20, 12:08 PM, "Xiaojian Zhou" wrote: > > It's using region path instead of getting the region. It should be no > risk. > > On 8/19/20, 10:25 AM, "Xiaojian Zhou" wrote: > >

Re: [PROPOSAL] Remove "Fix Version/s" and "Sprint" from Jira "Create Issue" dialogue and include "Affects Version/s"

+1 esp addition of "Affects Version/s". On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 3:07 PM Kirk Lund wrote: > +1 if it's possible > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 12:04 PM Donal Evans wrote: > > > Looking at the dialogue that opens when you attempt to create a new > ticket > > in the GEODE Jira[1], there are two

Re: [Proposal] Backport GEODE-8422 to support/1.13

I was waiting until you confirmed that the fix had successfully completed a test cycle on develop. I see Owen gave it the green light in that regard, so all is in order. Thanks for this — at the beginning of the week, it was our last known blocker. -Dave > On Aug 13, 2020, at 5:08 PM, Mark

Re: [Proposal] Backport GEODE-8422 to support/1.13

proval for priority of it once > it does pass. (Maybe I am being a little over zealous). > > Thanks, > Mark > > On 8/12/20, 5:52 PM, "Dave Barnes" wrote: > > Has the version on the develop branch completed a test cycle? > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020

Re: [Proposal] Backport GEODE-8422 to support/1.13

Has the version on the develop branch completed a test cycle? On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 4:52 PM Jianxia Chen wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 4:41 PM Mark Hanson wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > We have found a case where tombstones were being cleared when the region > > was not initialized.

Re: [PROPOSAL] Backport GEODE-8423 to support/1.13

OK, Sarah, you have the requisite 3 votes -- go ahead and back-port. Thanks for your contribution! -Dave On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 9:24 AM Dan Smith wrote: > +1 > > -Dan > > On Aug 12, 2020, at 8:59 AM, Sarah Abbey sab...@vmware.com>> wrote: > > get > >

Re: [PROPOSAL] Backport GEODE-8423 to support/1.13

+1 On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 9:10 AM Darrel Schneider wrote: > +1 > > From: Sarah Abbey > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 8:59 AM > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject: [PROPOSAL] Backport GEODE-8423 to support/1.13 > > The documentation for the Redis API for

Re: [PROPOSAL] backport GEODE-8394 to support/1.13

Plenty of approvals. Go ahead and port, Anil. Thanks! On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 11:08 AM Owen Nichols wrote: > +1 and please bring to support/1.12 as well > > On 8/7/20, 10:49 AM, "Jianxia Chen" wrote: > > +1 > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 10:35 AM Anilkumar Gingade > > wrote: > > >

Re: [PROPOSAL] backport GEODE-6564 to support/1.13

Go ahead and back-port, Darrel. Thanks for your contribution. On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:51 PM Alexander Murmann wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:47 PM Jianxia Chen wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:13 PM Darrel Schneider > wrote: > > > > > GEODE-6564 is a memory leak

Re: Proposal to backport GEODE-8395 (gfsh help banner) to support branches

Hard to believe this problem was still hanging around. Definitely back-port, the sooner, the better. On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 7:56 AM Dave Barnes wrote: > +1 > > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 7:07 AM Donal Evans wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Nice catch! >> >>

Re: Proposal to backport GEODE-8395 (gfsh help banner) to support branches

+1 On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 7:07 AM Donal Evans wrote: > +1 > > Nice catch! > > Get Outlook for Android > > > From: Jinmei Liao > Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 11:09:45 PM > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject: Re: Proposal to backport

[PROPOSAL] back-port GEODE-8388 native client doc fixes to support/1.13

GEODE-8388: Geode Native Client user guide: delete unused sources Housekeeping: The geode-native docs directory contains unused sources from the pre-open-source days. The problem is that while they're not linked to the user guide's T of C, these out-of-date docs are still included in the manual

Re: [PROPOSAL] one-time cleanup of stray and obsolete tags in geode repo

+1 On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 8:45 AM Owen Nichols wrote: > Hi Donal, I can confirm that develop/highwater hasn't been updated in a > year and is no longer in use by any pipelines (all pipelines use the last > release tag as the benchmark baseline now). > > On 7/30/20, 5:48 AM, "Donal Evans"

Re: [PROPOSAL] port GEODE-8385 changes to support/1.13

+1 Thanks, Bruce. On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 8:22 AM Jianxia Chen wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 8:04 AM Bruce Schuchardt > wrote: > > > This concerns a hang during recovery from disk. The problem was > > introduced in 1.13. > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-8385 > > >

Re: [PROPOSAL] Postpone Geode 1.14

+1 On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 5:05 PM Donal Evans wrote: > +1 > > From: Owen Nichols > Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 4:38 PM > To: Alexander Murmann ; dev@geode.apache.org < > dev@geode.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Postpone Geode 1.14 > > +1 > > > --- >

Re: [PROPOSAL] port GEODE-8323 changes to support/1.13 branch.

OK, Eric, go ahead. Thanks for your contribution! Dave On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 5:15 PM Donal Evans wrote: > +1 > > From: Dick Cavender > Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 4:53 PM > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] port GEODE-8323 changes to

Re: [Proposal] Back-port doc fixes to support/1.13

t; > +1 > > On July 22, 2020 at 3:43:16 PM PDT, Jinmei Liao wrote: > +1 > > On Jul 22, 2020 3:39 PM, Dave Barnes wrote: > I propose back-porting the following doc updates to Geode support/1.13 > (and 1.12, while we're at it): > > > - GEODE-2113: User Guide - p

[Proposal] Back-port doc fixes to support/1.13

I propose back-porting the following doc updates to Geode support/1.13 (and 1.12, while we're at it): - GEODE-2113: User Guide - p2p.HANDSHAKE_POOL_SIZE is obsolete, remove from docs (code fixed in 1.9.0, docs fixed in 1.14.0) - GEODE-7628: Block jmx mbean creation when no security manager is

Re: [PROPOSAL] Cherry pic GEODE-8331 to support branches

Please go ahead, Jinmei. Thanks for your contribution. On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 3:11 PM Dick Cavender wrote: > +1 > > -Original Message- > From: Anilkumar Gingade > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 2:44 PM > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Cherry pic GEODE-8331 to

Re: [VOTE] change Default branch for geode-examples to 'develop'

+1 > On Jul 9, 2020, at 10:04 PM, Dick Cavender wrote: > > +1 > > -Original Message- > From: Owen Nichols > Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 9:39 PM > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject: [VOTE] change Default branch for geode-examples to 'develop' > > A fresh checkout of geode and all

Re: [Proposal] - RFC etiquette

+1 "Adding a section" (Udo's language) for Use Cases is a positive way of encouraging RFC authors to provide that material, without saying it's an iron-clad requirement. Exactly the right way to do it. Commenters can request more detail when they review it. On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 4:31 PM Donal

Re: [PROPOSAL] backport fix for GEODE-8020 to support/1.13

Thanks, Bruce. On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 10:32 AM Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > Since I had 3 +1’s I merged the change to support/1.13 > > From: Bruce Schuchardt > Date: Thursday, July 9, 2020 at 8:00 AM > To: "dev@geode.apache.org" > Subject: [PROPOSAL] backport fix for GEODE-8020 to support/1.13 >

Re: [PROPOSAL]: Backport GEODE-8029 to support/1.12 and support/1.13

Sounds like an improvement, Juan, and you’ve got the votes. Go ahead and back port. Thanks, Dave > On Jul 3, 2020, at 9:08 AM, Joris Melchior wrote: > > +1 > > On 2020-07-03, 9:06 AM, "Ju@N" > wrote: > >Hello devs, > >I'd like to propose bringing

Re: Back-Port GEODE-8240 to 1.12, 1.13

Hey, Bill, you got the votes. Go ahead with the back-ports. Thanks, Dave On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:54 AM Kirk Lund wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:59 AM Dick Cavender wrote: > > > +1 > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Bruce Schuchardt > > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 9:49

Re: [PROPOSAL] merge GEODE-8259 to support branches

OK, Gester, please merge. Thanks, Dave On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 8:33 AM Bruce Schuchardt wrote: > +1 > I reviewed this PR and, as Gester said, it's low risk. If it fixes a > problem someone is having let's backport it. > > On 6/30/20, 3:51 PM, "Xiaojian Zhou" wrote: > > Customer

Re: [PROPOSAL] merge GEODE-8259 to support branches

...and there it is! On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:10 PM Dave Barnes wrote: > Strange -- I received the two votes 9 minutes before I got the original > message. > I'm heading out for the day, so Gester, if you get that third vote, go > ahead and merge. > Cheers, > Dave > > O

Re: [PROPOSAL] merge GEODE-8259 to support branches

Strange -- I received the two votes 9 minutes before I got the original message. I'm heading out for the day, so Gester, if you get that third vote, go ahead and merge. Cheers, Dave On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 3:58 PM Jinmei Liao wrote: > +1 > > From: Owen Nichols

Re: Proposal to bring GEODE-8315 (shiro upgrade) to support branches

Thanks for taking care of that, Owen. On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:38 AM Owen Nichols wrote: > Backported to support/1.13 and support/1.12 > > On 6/30/20, 9:37 AM, "Robert Houghton" wrote: > > +1 > > From: Dick Cavender > Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 at 9:14 AM > To:

Re: [Proposal] Back-port doc fixes to support/1.13

For completeness, GEODE-7519 was a typo, should have been GEODE-7518. On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:44 AM Dave Barnes wrote: > That was quick - thanks, all. I'll proceed with the back-port of these 5 > fixes. > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:36 AM Donal Evans wr

Re: [Proposal] Back-port doc fixes to support/1.13

e: [Proposal] Back-port doc fixes to support/1.13 > > +1 > > On 6/29/20, 10:32 AM, "Jinmei Liao" wrote: > > +1, yay to doc changes. > ____ > From: Dave Barnes > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 10:30 AM > To: dev@geode

[Proposal] Back-port doc fixes to support/1.13

These five doc changes correct doc bugs and format errors that have caused users pain. I propose that we back-port them to support/1.13: GEODE-8193: Broken link in statistics list GEODE-7956, GEODE-7519: Docs should mention dot as a valid region name character GEODE-8304: Better highlight steps

Re: [Proposal] Add REST command for Restore Redundancy to 1.13 (GEODE-8095)

OK - you've got the votes, Mark, thanks for your contribution. I'm persuaded by the positive arguments and assurances of low risk. All: let's focus on getting to RC1. I'm not comfortable with "as this release has drug on for so long, it might be just about time to reset expectations". Let's clean

Re: [PROPOSAL] merge GEODE-8195 to support/1.13 and support/1.12

Looks good. Merge to 1.13 (if you haven't already). -Dave On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:05 AM Donal Evans wrote: > +1 > > From: Owen Nichols > Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 9:59 AM > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] merge GEODE-8195 to

Re: Fate of master branch

+1 if we can override git’s ‘master’ default and establish ‘develop’ in its place. Otherwise renaming to ‘main’ would solve the problem with the negative connotations. NB: Mark, I think the 3-vote convention is just for back-ports to the release-branch. I don’t think of it as applying to a

Re: [VOTE] Backporting of GEODE-8261 to 1.13 release branch.

Thanks for taking care of this, Naba. > On Jun 19, 2020, at 12:27 PM, Nabarun Nag wrote: > > Thank you all for the votes needed for the backport. It has been backported > to support/1.13 branch > > GEODE-8261: Added a null check for the proxyID. (#5251) > > Regards > Naba > > >

Re: [PROPOSAL] back port fix for GEODE-8251 to support branches

OK to backport, Jinmei. Thanks for your contribution. -Dave (I saw a +1 vote from Owen in another email client, though it doesn’t seem to show up in this rendering of the thread. Thought I had successfully worked around the email issue. Hmmm…) > On Jun 19, 2020, at 8:47 AM, Jianxia Chen

Re: [PROPOSAL] backport GEODE-8277 to support/1.13

Wow, +103! Sounds like an endorsement. On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:44 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > +1 > > On 6/18/20, 12:15 PM, "Dick Cavender" wrote: > > +1 > > -Original Message- > From: Ernie Burghardt > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2020 10:49 AM > To:

Re: [PROPOSAL] backport PR #5250 to support/1.13

Looks good, Bruce. Please backport. On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 4:01 PM Owen Nichols wrote: > +1 > > On 6/16/20, 3:54 PM, "Jianxia Chen" wrote: > > +1 > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:24 PM Bruce Schuchardt > wrote: > > > This PR has been merged to develop. It fixes a problem with the

Re: Refactor to Restore Redundancy Command for 1.13?

rk > > On 6/16/20, 2:07 PM, "Dave Barnes" wrote: > > If I understand correctly that the refactored version has already been > checked in and tested on `develop`, then we have enough approvals to > add > this to 1.13. > Go ahead, Mark. > >

Re: Refactor to Restore Redundancy Command for 1.13?

If I understand correctly that the refactored version has already been checked in and tested on `develop`, then we have enough approvals to add this to 1.13. Go ahead, Mark. On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:45 AM Joris Melchior wrote: > Yes, +1 on this change. > > Joris >

Re: [PROPOSAL] backport GEODE-8238 to support/1.13

OK, Bruce -- merge away. Thanks, Dave On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:47 PM Dick Cavender wrote: > +1 > > -Original Message- > From: Eric Shu > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 11:33 AM > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] backport GEODE-8238 to support/1.13 > > +1 >

Re: [PROPOSAL]: BackPort GEODE-8029 to support/1.12 and support/1.13

Looks like the community approves, Ju@n. Go ahead and merge. Thanks, Dave On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:37 AM Joris Melchior wrote: > +1 > > From: Ju@N > Sent: June 10, 2020 6:18 > To: dev@geode.apache.org > Subject: [PROPOSAL]: BackPort GEODE-8029 to

Re: [DISCUSSION] Stop using the Geode Repository for Feature/WIP Branches

Suppose I want to commit to another contributor's fork. How can they grant me permission to do so? (This is a common predicament for me when I'm reviewing doc PRs.) On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 2:04 PM Xiaojian Zhou wrote: > We have discussed that when in Common team. The current solution worked >

Re: [PROPOASAL] backport GEODE-8144

I'm going to spend a release-manager +1 to put this proposal over the top. Please merge this fix into support/1.13, Bruce. Thanks, Dave On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 7:52 AM Udo Kohlmeyer wrote: > +1 > On May 27, 2020, 1:35 PM -0700, Bruce Schuchardt , > wrote: > This ticket has two PRs. One passed

Re: No more hardcoded region separators!

Excellent, Donal! If you have not already done so, please consider documenting the practice you're advocating in a place where all community contributors have a chance of seeing it. Maybe https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GEODE/How+to+Contribute? On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 9:46 AM Donal

  1   2   3   4   >