Given that we have ALREADY merged this in AND it has passed through the
majority of our pipeline without incident,
I'll change to a -0...
I make this is a " - " because I'm quietly objecting to the fact that we
have not followed process and merged without waiting for consensus. Also
the reaso
This problem has happened before, and will probably happen in the future.
Recently we adjusted the Geode release process to dictate that the Geode
release manager will handle the merging of approved changes to a release
branch while also allowing the community time for input and discussion on
those
-1
I must agree with Owen's analysis.
It's a known problem, and it will not cause the system to stop working.
Yes, it is a bug and will cause issues with results, BUT it will NOT
affect the stability of the system. Which is one of the only reasons we
should be adding fixes to an already cut r
Thank you for providing some context for what is being voted here. Based on
this information, I will give my vote as “+0” (imho it may not meet the
definition of a “critical fix”, but seems like the risk is low and the
community wants it, so I have no real objection).
> On Sep 19, 2019, at 11
Owen:
Here are the answers:
- Is this fixing an issue of Data loss? Performance degradation?
Backward-compatibility issue? Availability impacts? Resource exhaustion
(threads, disk, cpu, memory, sockets, etc)?
Without the fix, fields in the inherited attributes cannot be indexed, if
it's user obj
> On Sep 19, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Xiaojian Zhou wrote:
>
> Owen:
>
> The reason is: it's already cherry-picked to 1.9.
Can you kindly point me to the specific SHA where this was fixed in 1.9? I am
not able to find it...
>
> Gester
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:13 AM Owen Nichols wrote:
>
Owen:
The reason is: it's already cherry-picked to 1.9.
Gester
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:13 AM Owen Nichols wrote:
> It looks like this has already passed the vote, but I don’t see an
> explanation anywhere in this thread for what makes this a "critical fix".
>
> As I recall release/1.10.0 wa
It looks like this has already passed the vote, but I don’t see an explanation
anywhere in this thread for what makes this a "critical fix".
As I recall release/1.10.0 was branched at the beginning of August, so it seems
appropriate to apply a very high level of scrutiny to any continuing propos
+1
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:02 AM Eric Shu wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:59 AM Benjamin Ross wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:49 AM Xiaojian Zhou
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I want to me
+1
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:59 AM Benjamin Ross wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:49 AM Xiaojian Zhou wrote:
> >
> > > I want to merge GEODE-7208, which is lucene specific fix
> > >
> > > The fix will enable index
+1
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:50 AM Nabarun Nag wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:49 AM Xiaojian Zhou wrote:
>
> > I want to merge GEODE-7208, which is lucene specific fix
> >
> > The fix will enable indexing on inherited attributes in user object.
> >
> > revision 4ec87419d456748a7d85
+1
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:49 AM Xiaojian Zhou wrote:
> I want to merge GEODE-7208, which is lucene specific fix
>
> The fix will enable indexing on inherited attributes in user object.
>
> revision 4ec87419d456748a7d853e979c90ad4e301b2405
>
> Regards
> Gester
>
I want to merge GEODE-7208, which is lucene specific fix
The fix will enable indexing on inherited attributes in user object.
revision 4ec87419d456748a7d853e979c90ad4e301b2405
Regards
Gester
13 matches
Mail list logo
