Upgrade netty-tcnative-boringssl-static to 2.0.35.Final #8126
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jtattermusch
commented
Apr 29, 2021
| @@ -404,7 +404,8 @@ grpc-netty version | netty-handler version | netty-tcnative-boringssl-static ver | |||
| 1.28.x | 4.1.45.Final | 2.0.28.Final | |||
| 1.29.x-1.31.x | 4.1.48.Final | 2.0.30.Final | |||
| 1.32.x-1.34.x | 4.1.51.Final | 2.0.31.Final | |||
| 1.35.x- | 4.1.52.Final | 2.0.34.Final | |||
| 1.35.x-1.37.x | 4.1.52.Final | 2.0.34.Final | |||
| 1.38.x- | 4.1.52.Final | 2.0.35.Final | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wasn't sure if also updating grpc-netty version at the same time is required or not.
|
CC @ejona86 |
This was referenced Apr 29, 2021
|
Closing this PR as per #8127 (comment). @dapengzhang0 is going to take care of the netty-tcnative-boringssl-static upgrade. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Should fix #7830 (as per the analysis here: #7830 (comment))
Related PR from other contributor #7979 (which is likely superseded by this PR?)