You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ignite.apache.org by Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com> on 2021/09/18 01:21:41 UTC
[DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3
Igniters,
I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x will coexist for a
while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we still accumulate
the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project, which seems to
complicate the ticket management.
For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x tickets, but this approach
is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new ticket, it's
likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single Confluence space.
I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new Confluence space for Ignite
3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
Any thoughts or objections?
-Val
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>.
Huge +1.
сб, 18 сент. 2021 г., 04:22 Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> Igniters,
>
> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x will coexist for a
> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we still accumulate
> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project, which seems to
> complicate the ticket management.
>
> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x tickets, but this approach
> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new ticket, it's
> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>
> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single Confluence space.
>
> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new Confluence space for Ignite
> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
>
> Any thoughts or objections?
>
> -Val
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Nikita Ivanov <ni...@gmail.com>.
+1
--
Nikita Ivanov
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 6:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko
<va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Igniters,
>
> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x will coexist for a
> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we still accumulate
> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project, which seems to
> complicate the ticket management.
>
> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x tickets, but this approach
> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new ticket, it's
> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>
> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single Confluence space.
>
> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new Confluence space for Ignite
> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
>
> Any thoughts or objections?
>
> -Val
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>.
Dmitry,
Thanks! Sure, this is not super urgent. Please let us know when this is
ready.
And feel free to ask me any questions if you have any.
-Val
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 5:13 PM Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
>
> I hope it is not too urgent.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dmitriy Pavlov
>
> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Dmitry,
> >
> > According to Infra, this has to be done through
> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
> > but only PMC chairs have access.
> >
> > Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira project and
> > Confluence space?
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Infra requests created:
> > >
> > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
> > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are Ignite2 and
> > >> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be logical and
> natural
> > >> course of things.
> > >>
> > >> > On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > +1
> > >> > This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some pending
> Ignite
> > >> 3
> > >> > specific documents, and it is not clear where to put them at the
> moment.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Igniters,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x will
> coexist
> > >> for a
> > >> >> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we still
> > >> accumulate
> > >> >> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project, which
> seems to
> > >> >> complicate the ticket management.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x tickets, but this
> > >> approach
> > >> >> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new ticket,
> it's
> > >> >> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single Confluence
> > >> space.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new Confluence space
> for
> > >> Ignite
> > >> >> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Any thoughts or objections?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -Val
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > With regards,
> > >> > Aleksandr Polovtcev
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>.
Generation is a good one.
Also we can use variant from DEB packaging versioning — EPOCH.
> On 17 Oct 2021, at 02:52, Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Since there are controversial opinions regarding the topic, I've cancelled
> the vote and would like to resurrect the discussion.
>
> There are a couple of items that I would like to hear your opinions on.
>
> 1. I still propose to have a separate Confluence space for Ignite 3. This
> makes total sense to me - Ignite 2 and 3 have such different architectures,
> that mixing their internal documentations is really confusing. The same
> goes for IEPs.
> 2. If we create a mandatory field to Jira as we discussed, what should be
> the name? Current suggestions are "Architecture" and "Generation". Are
> there any other ideas?
>
> Please let me know your thoughts.
>
> -Val
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, If I missed something in the thread but in case of a separate
>> JIRA project how are users supposed to create e.g. bug tickets? How
>> can we make sure that users will not use a wrong JIRA project often?
>>
>> 2021-10-05 2:50 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
>>> Ivan,
>>>
>>> I'm not pushing, I'm trying to apply the lazy consensus. It soon will be
>> a
>>> whole month since I've started the discussion - more than enough to
>> express
>>> concerns and provide alternative suggestions. Please keep in mind that we
>>> are trying to address a very specific technical problem that influences
>> the
>>> development. "Do nothing" is not really an option here.
>>>
>>> Either way, I will put the initial suggestion for the vote.
>>>
>>> -Val
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 12:24 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Val,
>>>>
>>>>> Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear
>>>> picture on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
>>>>
>>>> For a moment I felt that the proposal is pushed. Let's not do so. The
>>>> subject is very important, years impact I suppose. And the best way
>>>> here is to reach absolute consensus. Without tight timelines so far.
>>>> In case if we fail with consensus we can arrange formal voting.
>>>>
>>>> 2021-09-29 14:34 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> I am watching how Apache Ignite does evolve for over a 3 years already
>>>> and
>>>>> see that such hidden (almost no Open Source Community points could be
>>>>> achieved for refactoring and addressing something that is not directly
>>>>> project's source executable code) issues drown under constant pressure
>>>>> of
>>>>> new features and releases.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have never created issues for Maven build refactoring (for
>> instanced)
>>>>> because I understand that 1) it is almost impossible for current tech
>>>> debt
>>>>> already accumulated and 2) to won't be welcomed by community because
>> of
>>>>> indirect relationship to main project's goals.
>>>>> Considering other parts, please, note [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6],
>>>>> [7],
>>>> [8]
>>>>> and many many more issues that have no separate ticket.
>>>>>
>>>>> My point — such technical debt is overwhelming and will be never ever
>>>>> approached.
>>>>> That is one of the reasons why Ignite 3 being built from scratch,
>>>>> having
>>>> in
>>>>> mind all mistakes we've already made and lots of errors we will never
>>>>> do
>>>>> just because there would be no legacy basic for that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7190
>>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7326
>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7672
>>>>> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8496
>>>>> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9866
>>>>> [6] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10600
>>>>> [7] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10683
>>>>> [8] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10696
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29 Sep 2021, at 14:14, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’m not aware of the issues.
>>>>>> Can you, please, send a tickets or description of existing issues?
>>>>>> Anyway, it seems change of build tool can be done at any time we want
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> — issues related to run scripts?
>>>>>>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’m not aware of those too.
>>>>>> Can you point to then, please?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, from my point of view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 14:03, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what about:
>>>>>>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade?
>>>>>>> — issues related to run scripts?
>>>>>>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 29 Sep 2021, at 13:47, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt
>>>>>>>>> addressing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, of course.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My vision was the following (from the bird eye):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - 2.20 - removals of LOCAL caches, MVCC and other abandoned
>>>>>>>> features.
>>>>>>>> (User API doesn’t change).
>>>>>>>> - 2.30 - replace static XML configuration with the new dynamic
>>>>>>>> approach.
>>>>>>>> - 2.40 - replace H2 SQL engine with the Calcite
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Versions depends on feature readiness.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, I step back with the initial Ignite3 development, because,
>>>> don’t
>>>>>>>> want to interfere the progress.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Respect to the developers who have courage to develop such complex
>>>>>>>> things from scratch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 12:55, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I believe that we should improve Ignite evolutionary and not
>>>>>>>>>> revolutionary.
>>>>>>>>>> First of all, change user API with the slow improvements step by
>>>>>>>>>> step.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt
>>>>>>>>> addressing?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 11:43, Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>> <il...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If we go the second route, we can call the field "Generation".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Generation: Ignite 2.x
>>>>>>>>>>> Generation: Ignite 3
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (no new tickets should ever be filed for Ignite 1.x but if they
>>>> are,
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> should go to the first Generation)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ср, 29 сент. 2021 г. в 00:33, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the original topic, we need to come to a solution. Let
>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>> summarize
>>>>>>>>>>>> what we've discussed so far.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -PROBLEM-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3 is the next major version of Apache Ignite. It targets
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>> use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2.
>> At
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>> time, Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate
>> projects.
>>>>>>>>>>>> They are
>>>>>>>>>>>> developed in different repositories (and therefore are based on
>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>> codebases) and implement different internal architectures. To
>>>>>>>>>>>> achieve a
>>>>>>>>>>>> more efficient development process, we need to create a clear
>>>>>>>>>>>> separation
>>>>>>>>>>>> between 2.x and 3.x within *development resources* (Jira and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Create a separate Jira project and Confluence space for
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>> (initial suggestion).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Add a *mandatory* field in Jira to identify whether a ticket
>>>>>>>>>>>> belongs to
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.x or 3.x.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If we go with #2, there are still several things to figure out:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - What is the name of this field? It needs to be intuitive to
>>>> anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>> joins the community.
>>>>>>>>>>>> - We need to make sure that Ignite 3 tickets are not mapped to
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.x
>>>>>>>>>>>> versions, and vice versa. Can we restrict this in Jira? Or we
>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> monitor this manually?
>>>>>>>>>>>> - What do we do with Confluence?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial
>>>> suggestion:
>>>>>>>>>>>> if you
>>>>>>>>>>>> still prefer the second option, could you please address the
>>>> points
>>>>>>>>>>>> above?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think it can be treated as an actual suggestion until
>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> cover
>>>>>>>>>>>> these details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>>>>>> on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current
>> scheme
>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> March
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> present your suggestions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov <
>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seems rational.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error in either version...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <vo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and
>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <
>>>> vololo100@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions
>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> clash.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mr.weider@gmail.com
>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sa...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if
>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite-kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of
>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiled for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughput accelerators
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saikat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my
>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technicality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as
>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what others think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with
>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>> predefined
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better
>>>> name,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues.
>> What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disturbs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> recently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disturbing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed
>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> split
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created
>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repo for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared the codebase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be
>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3
>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the
>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely
>>>>>>>>>>>> orthogonal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our
>>>> tooling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>>>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3
>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high-performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APIs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>> thus,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mmuzaf@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have
>> dependent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the
>>>> development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on
>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> honestly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems
>>>>>>>>>>>> counterproductive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different
>>>> focus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> architecture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite3" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coexists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done
>> through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jira
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov
>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (that
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments
>>>> seem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Polovtcev
>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that
>> Ignite
>>>> 2.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will coexist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repos, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same
>>>> Jira
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the
>>>> label
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well -
>> we
>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and
>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pages
>>>>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>.
Folks,
Since there are controversial opinions regarding the topic, I've cancelled
the vote and would like to resurrect the discussion.
There are a couple of items that I would like to hear your opinions on.
1. I still propose to have a separate Confluence space for Ignite 3. This
makes total sense to me - Ignite 2 and 3 have such different architectures,
that mixing their internal documentations is really confusing. The same
goes for IEPs.
2. If we create a mandatory field to Jira as we discussed, what should be
the name? Current suggestions are "Architecture" and "Generation". Are
there any other ideas?
Please let me know your thoughts.
-Val
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, If I missed something in the thread but in case of a separate
> JIRA project how are users supposed to create e.g. bug tickets? How
> can we make sure that users will not use a wrong JIRA project often?
>
> 2021-10-05 2:50 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > Ivan,
> >
> > I'm not pushing, I'm trying to apply the lazy consensus. It soon will be
> a
> > whole month since I've started the discussion - more than enough to
> express
> > concerns and provide alternative suggestions. Please keep in mind that we
> > are trying to address a very specific technical problem that influences
> the
> > development. "Do nothing" is not really an option here.
> >
> > Either way, I will put the initial suggestion for the vote.
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 12:24 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Val,
> >>
> >> > Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear
> >> picture on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
> >>
> >> For a moment I felt that the proposal is pushed. Let's not do so. The
> >> subject is very important, years impact I suppose. And the best way
> >> here is to reach absolute consensus. Without tight timelines so far.
> >> In case if we fail with consensus we can arrange formal voting.
> >>
> >> 2021-09-29 14:34 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
> >> > I am watching how Apache Ignite does evolve for over a 3 years already
> >> and
> >> > see that such hidden (almost no Open Source Community points could be
> >> > achieved for refactoring and addressing something that is not directly
> >> > project's source executable code) issues drown under constant pressure
> >> > of
> >> > new features and releases.
> >> >
> >> > I have never created issues for Maven build refactoring (for
> instanced)
> >> > because I understand that 1) it is almost impossible for current tech
> >> debt
> >> > already accumulated and 2) to won't be welcomed by community because
> of
> >> > indirect relationship to main project's goals.
> >> > Considering other parts, please, note [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6],
> >> > [7],
> >> [8]
> >> > and many many more issues that have no separate ticket.
> >> >
> >> > My point — such technical debt is overwhelming and will be never ever
> >> > approached.
> >> > That is one of the reasons why Ignite 3 being built from scratch,
> >> > having
> >> in
> >> > mind all mistakes we've already made and lots of errors we will never
> >> > do
> >> > just because there would be no legacy basic for that.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7190
> >> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7326
> >> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7672
> >> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8496
> >> > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9866
> >> > [6] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10600
> >> > [7] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10683
> >> > [8] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10696
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> On 29 Sep 2021, at 14:14, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade?
> >> >>
> >> >> I’m not aware of the issues.
> >> >> Can you, please, send a tickets or description of existing issues?
> >> >> Anyway, it seems change of build tool can be done at any time we want
> >> >>
> >> >>> — issues related to run scripts?
> >> >>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts?
> >> >>
> >> >> I’m not aware of those too.
> >> >> Can you point to then, please?
> >> >>
> >> >>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, from my point of view.
> >> >>
> >> >>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 14:03, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
> >> написал(а):
> >> >>>
> >> >>> And what about:
> >> >>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade?
> >> >>> — issues related to run scripts?
> >> >>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On 29 Sep 2021, at 13:47, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt
> >> >>>>> addressing
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Yes, of course.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> My vision was the following (from the bird eye):
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> - 2.20 - removals of LOCAL caches, MVCC and other abandoned
> >> >>>> features.
> >> >>>> (User API doesn’t change).
> >> >>>> - 2.30 - replace static XML configuration with the new dynamic
> >> >>>> approach.
> >> >>>> - 2.40 - replace H2 SQL engine with the Calcite
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> etc.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Versions depends on feature readiness.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Anyway, I step back with the initial Ignite3 development, because,
> >> don’t
> >> >>>> want to interfere the progress.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Respect to the developers who have courage to develop such complex
> >> >>>> things from scratch.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 12:55, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>> написал(а):
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I believe that we should improve Ignite evolutionary and not
> >> >>>>>> revolutionary.
> >> >>>>>> First of all, change user API with the slow improvements step by
> >> >>>>>> step.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Nikolay,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt
> >> >>>>> addressing?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 11:43, Ilya Kasnacheev
> >> >>>>>>> <il...@gmail.com> написал(а):
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Hello!
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> If we go the second route, we can call the field "Generation".
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Generation: Ignite 2.x
> >> >>>>>>> Generation: Ignite 3
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> (no new tickets should ever be filed for Ignite 1.x but if they
> >> are,
> >> >>>>>>> they
> >> >>>>>>> should go to the first Generation)
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Regards.
> >> >>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> ср, 29 сент. 2021 г. в 00:33, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> >>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> As for the original topic, we need to come to a solution. Let
> me
> >> >>>>>>>> summarize
> >> >>>>>>>> what we've discussed so far.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> -PROBLEM-
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Ignite 3 is the next major version of Apache Ignite. It targets
> >> the
> >> >>>>>>>> same
> >> >>>>>>>> use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2.
> At
> >> the
> >> >>>>>>>> same
> >> >>>>>>>> time, Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate
> projects.
> >> >>>>>>>> They are
> >> >>>>>>>> developed in different repositories (and therefore are based on
> >> >>>>>>>> different
> >> >>>>>>>> codebases) and implement different internal architectures. To
> >> >>>>>>>> achieve a
> >> >>>>>>>> more efficient development process, we need to create a clear
> >> >>>>>>>> separation
> >> >>>>>>>> between 2.x and 3.x within *development resources* (Jira and
> >> >>>>>>>> Confluence).
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> -POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS-
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> 1. Create a separate Jira project and Confluence space for
> >> >>>>>>>> Ignite
> >> 3
> >> >>>>>>>> (initial suggestion).
> >> >>>>>>>> 2. Add a *mandatory* field in Jira to identify whether a ticket
> >> >>>>>>>> belongs to
> >> >>>>>>>> 2.x or 3.x.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> If we go with #2, there are still several things to figure out:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> - What is the name of this field? It needs to be intuitive to
> >> anyone
> >> >>>>>>>> who
> >> >>>>>>>> joins the community.
> >> >>>>>>>> - We need to make sure that Ignite 3 tickets are not mapped to
> >> >>>>>>>> 2.x
> >> >>>>>>>> versions, and vice versa. Can we restrict this in Jira? Or we
> >> >>>>>>>> will
> >> >>>>>>>> have
> >> >>>>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>>> monitor this manually?
> >> >>>>>>>> - What do we do with Confluence?
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial
> >> suggestion:
> >> >>>>>>>> if you
> >> >>>>>>>> still prefer the second option, could you please address the
> >> points
> >> >>>>>>>> above?
> >> >>>>>>>> I don't think it can be treated as an actual suggestion until
> we
> >> >>>>>>>> cover
> >> >>>>>>>> these details.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no
> >> >>>>>>>> clear
> >> >>>>>>>> picture
> >> >>>>>>>> on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> -Val
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> >>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Folks,
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current
> scheme
> >> in
> >> >>>>>>>>> March
> >> >>>>>>>>> [1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a
> >> >>>>>>>>> new
> >> >>>>>>>>> thread
> >> >>>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>> present your suggestions.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> [1]
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> -Val
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov <
> >> mr.weider@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Seems rational.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like
> >> >>>>>>>>>> similar or
> >> >>>>>>>>>> error in either version...
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> <vo...@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and
> >> Ignite
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> 3
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> <mr...@gmail.com>:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <
> >> vololo100@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
> >> >>>>>>>> e.g.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions
> will
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >> >>>>>>>> clash.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mr.weider@gmail.com
> >> >:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
> >> >>>>>>>>>> intuitive
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sa...@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if
> we
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were to
> >> >>>>>>>>>> come
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite-kernel
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of
> >> something
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiled for
> >> >>>>>>>>>> high
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughput accelerators
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saikat
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my
> >> >>>>>>>> knowledge).
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else
> >> >>>>>>>> is a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technicality.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as
> I
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> >> >>>>>>>>>> really
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
> >> >>>>>>>> with a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what others think.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dm...@apache.org>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
> >> a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with
> two
> >> >>>>>>>> predefined
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values -
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better
> >> name,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >> >>>>>>>>>> needs
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues.
> What
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disturbs
> >> >>>>>>>>>> me
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>> recently
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disturbing.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed
> >> two
> >> >>>>>>>>>> separate
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebases.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >> >>>>>>>>>> split
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created
> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repo for
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >> >>>>>>>> these
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared the codebase.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be
> just
> >> >>>>>>>>>> transitioned
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >> >>>>>>>> will
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >> >>>>>>>> tickets.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3
> >> are
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
> >> >>>>>>>>>> mentioned,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the
> same
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
> >> >>>>>>>> they
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's
> >> >>>>>>>> not
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely
> >> >>>>>>>> orthogonal.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our
> >> tooling
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket management.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <
> >> >>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3
> as
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >> >>>>>>>>>> different
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high-performance
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APIs
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >> >>>>>>>> thus,
> >> >>>>>>>>>> a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is
> >> >>>>>>>>>> how
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
> >> >>>>>>>> on
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 we
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover,
> >> >>>>>>>>>> many
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >> 3
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> >> >>>>>>>> -
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
> >> >>>>>>>>>> mmuzaf@apache.org>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under
> >> >>>>>>>> Ignite's
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brand
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >> >>>>>>>> is
> >> >>>>>>>>>> a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have
> dependent
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions
> >> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the
> >> development
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero.
> >> >>>>>>>>>> However,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values?
> >> >>>>>>>> Why
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
> >> >>>>>>>>>> features?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on
> both
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 2
> >> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. I
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> honestly
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems
> >> >>>>>>>> counterproductive
> >> >>>>>>>>>> at
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's
> >> >>>>>>>>>> discuss
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
> >> we
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >> >>>>>>>>>> all
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :)
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called
> >> >>>>>>>>>> "Ignite
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <some
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different
> >> focus
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>> values
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite"?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >> >>>>>>>> new
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> architecture.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name.
> >> >>>>>>>>>> All is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >> >>>>>>>>>> "Ignite3" is
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another project?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite
> >> and
> >> >>>>>>>> Ignite3
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coexists?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <
> >> >>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done
> through
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jira
> >> >>>>>>>>>> project
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kulichenko <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov
> <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (that
> >> >>>>>>>> are
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments
> >> seem
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and natural
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Polovtcev
> >> <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >> >>>>>>>>>> some
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
> >> to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
> >> >>>>>>>>>> them
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kulichenko <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that
> Ignite
> >> 2.x
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>> 3.x
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will coexist
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repos, but
> >> >>>>>>>>>> we
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same
> >> Jira
> >> >>>>>>>>>> project,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which seems to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the
> >> label
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a
> >> >>>>>>>>>> new
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separation.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well -
> we
> >> use
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >> >>>>>>>>>> single
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and
> a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space for
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pages
> >> >>>>>>>> there.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>.
Sorry, If I missed something in the thread but in case of a separate
JIRA project how are users supposed to create e.g. bug tickets? How
can we make sure that users will not use a wrong JIRA project often?
2021-10-05 2:50 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>:
> Ivan,
>
> I'm not pushing, I'm trying to apply the lazy consensus. It soon will be a
> whole month since I've started the discussion - more than enough to express
> concerns and provide alternative suggestions. Please keep in mind that we
> are trying to address a very specific technical problem that influences the
> development. "Do nothing" is not really an option here.
>
> Either way, I will put the initial suggestion for the vote.
>
> -Val
>
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 12:24 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Val,
>>
>> > Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear
>> picture on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
>>
>> For a moment I felt that the proposal is pushed. Let's not do so. The
>> subject is very important, years impact I suppose. And the best way
>> here is to reach absolute consensus. Without tight timelines so far.
>> In case if we fail with consensus we can arrange formal voting.
>>
>> 2021-09-29 14:34 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>> > I am watching how Apache Ignite does evolve for over a 3 years already
>> and
>> > see that such hidden (almost no Open Source Community points could be
>> > achieved for refactoring and addressing something that is not directly
>> > project's source executable code) issues drown under constant pressure
>> > of
>> > new features and releases.
>> >
>> > I have never created issues for Maven build refactoring (for instanced)
>> > because I understand that 1) it is almost impossible for current tech
>> debt
>> > already accumulated and 2) to won't be welcomed by community because of
>> > indirect relationship to main project's goals.
>> > Considering other parts, please, note [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6],
>> > [7],
>> [8]
>> > and many many more issues that have no separate ticket.
>> >
>> > My point — such technical debt is overwhelming and will be never ever
>> > approached.
>> > That is one of the reasons why Ignite 3 being built from scratch,
>> > having
>> in
>> > mind all mistakes we've already made and lots of errors we will never
>> > do
>> > just because there would be no legacy basic for that.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7190
>> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7326
>> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7672
>> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8496
>> > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9866
>> > [6] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10600
>> > [7] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10683
>> > [8] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10696
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 29 Sep 2021, at 14:14, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade?
>> >>
>> >> I’m not aware of the issues.
>> >> Can you, please, send a tickets or description of existing issues?
>> >> Anyway, it seems change of build tool can be done at any time we want
>> >>
>> >>> — issues related to run scripts?
>> >>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts?
>> >>
>> >> I’m not aware of those too.
>> >> Can you point to then, please?
>> >>
>> >>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, from my point of view.
>> >>
>> >>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 14:03, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
>> написал(а):
>> >>>
>> >>> And what about:
>> >>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade?
>> >>> — issues related to run scripts?
>> >>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts?
>> >>>
>> >>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too?
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 29 Sep 2021, at 13:47, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt
>> >>>>> addressing
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yes, of course.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My vision was the following (from the bird eye):
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - 2.20 - removals of LOCAL caches, MVCC and other abandoned
>> >>>> features.
>> >>>> (User API doesn’t change).
>> >>>> - 2.30 - replace static XML configuration with the new dynamic
>> >>>> approach.
>> >>>> - 2.40 - replace H2 SQL engine with the Calcite
>> >>>>
>> >>>> etc.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Versions depends on feature readiness.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Anyway, I step back with the initial Ignite3 development, because,
>> don’t
>> >>>> want to interfere the progress.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Respect to the developers who have courage to develop such complex
>> >>>> things from scratch.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 12:55, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>> написал(а):
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> I believe that we should improve Ignite evolutionary and not
>> >>>>>> revolutionary.
>> >>>>>> First of all, change user API with the slow improvements step by
>> >>>>>> step.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Nikolay,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt
>> >>>>> addressing?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 11:43, Ilya Kasnacheev
>> >>>>>>> <il...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Hello!
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> If we go the second route, we can call the field "Generation".
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Generation: Ignite 2.x
>> >>>>>>> Generation: Ignite 3
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> (no new tickets should ever be filed for Ignite 1.x but if they
>> are,
>> >>>>>>> they
>> >>>>>>> should go to the first Generation)
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Regards.
>> >>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> ср, 29 сент. 2021 г. в 00:33, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> >>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> As for the original topic, we need to come to a solution. Let me
>> >>>>>>>> summarize
>> >>>>>>>> what we've discussed so far.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> -PROBLEM-
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Ignite 3 is the next major version of Apache Ignite. It targets
>> the
>> >>>>>>>> same
>> >>>>>>>> use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2. At
>> the
>> >>>>>>>> same
>> >>>>>>>> time, Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate projects.
>> >>>>>>>> They are
>> >>>>>>>> developed in different repositories (and therefore are based on
>> >>>>>>>> different
>> >>>>>>>> codebases) and implement different internal architectures. To
>> >>>>>>>> achieve a
>> >>>>>>>> more efficient development process, we need to create a clear
>> >>>>>>>> separation
>> >>>>>>>> between 2.x and 3.x within *development resources* (Jira and
>> >>>>>>>> Confluence).
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> -POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS-
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> 1. Create a separate Jira project and Confluence space for
>> >>>>>>>> Ignite
>> 3
>> >>>>>>>> (initial suggestion).
>> >>>>>>>> 2. Add a *mandatory* field in Jira to identify whether a ticket
>> >>>>>>>> belongs to
>> >>>>>>>> 2.x or 3.x.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> If we go with #2, there are still several things to figure out:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> - What is the name of this field? It needs to be intuitive to
>> anyone
>> >>>>>>>> who
>> >>>>>>>> joins the community.
>> >>>>>>>> - We need to make sure that Ignite 3 tickets are not mapped to
>> >>>>>>>> 2.x
>> >>>>>>>> versions, and vice versa. Can we restrict this in Jira? Or we
>> >>>>>>>> will
>> >>>>>>>> have
>> >>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>> monitor this manually?
>> >>>>>>>> - What do we do with Confluence?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial
>> suggestion:
>> >>>>>>>> if you
>> >>>>>>>> still prefer the second option, could you please address the
>> points
>> >>>>>>>> above?
>> >>>>>>>> I don't think it can be treated as an actual suggestion until we
>> >>>>>>>> cover
>> >>>>>>>> these details.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no
>> >>>>>>>> clear
>> >>>>>>>> picture
>> >>>>>>>> on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> -Val
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> >>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Folks,
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current scheme
>> in
>> >>>>>>>>> March
>> >>>>>>>>> [1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a
>> >>>>>>>>> new
>> >>>>>>>>> thread
>> >>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>> present your suggestions.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> [1]
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> -Val
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov <
>> mr.weider@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Seems rational.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like
>> >>>>>>>>>> similar or
>> >>>>>>>>>> error in either version...
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin
>> >>>>>>>>>>> <vo...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and
>> Ignite
>> >>>>>>>>>>> 3
>> >>>>>>>>>>> will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov
>> >>>>>>>>>>> <mr...@gmail.com>:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <
>> vololo100@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>> >>>>>>>> e.g.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>> >>>>>>>> clash.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mr.weider@gmail.com
>> >:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>> >>>>>>>>>> intuitive
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sa...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were to
>> >>>>>>>>>> come
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite-kernel
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of
>> something
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiled for
>> >>>>>>>>>> high
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughput accelerators
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saikat
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my
>> >>>>>>>> knowledge).
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else
>> >>>>>>>> is a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technicality.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>> >>>>>>>>>> really
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>> >>>>>>>> with a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what others think.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dm...@apache.org>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two
>> >>>>>>>> predefined
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values -
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better
>> name,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>> >>>>>>>>>> needs
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disturbs
>> >>>>>>>>>> me
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> recently
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disturbing.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed
>> two
>> >>>>>>>>>> separate
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> codebases.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>> >>>>>>>>>> split
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repo for
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>> >>>>>>>> these
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared the codebase.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just
>> >>>>>>>>>> transitioned
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>> >>>>>>>> will
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>> >>>>>>>> tickets.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3
>> are
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>> >>>>>>>>>> mentioned,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>> >>>>>>>> they
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's
>> >>>>>>>> not
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely
>> >>>>>>>> orthogonal.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our
>> tooling
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket management.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <
>> >>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>> different
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high-performance
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APIs
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>> >>>>>>>> thus,
>> >>>>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is
>> >>>>>>>>>> how
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>> >>>>>>>> on
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 we
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover,
>> >>>>>>>>>> many
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>> 3
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>> >>>>>>>> -
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
>> >>>>>>>>>> mmuzaf@apache.org>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under
>> >>>>>>>> Ignite's
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brand
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>> >>>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions
>> >>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the
>> development
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero.
>> >>>>>>>>>> However,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values?
>> >>>>>>>> Why
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current
>> >>>>>>>>>> features?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 2
>> >>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. I
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> honestly
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems
>> >>>>>>>> counterproductive
>> >>>>>>>>>> at
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's
>> >>>>>>>>>> discuss
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why
>> we
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>> >>>>>>>>>> all
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called
>> >>>>>>>>>> "Ignite
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <some
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different
>> focus
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>> values
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite"?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>> >>>>>>>> new
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> architecture.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name.
>> >>>>>>>>>> All is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>> >>>>>>>>>> "Ignite3" is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another project?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite
>> and
>> >>>>>>>> Ignite3
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coexists?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <
>> >>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jira
>> >>>>>>>>>> project
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kulichenko <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (that
>> >>>>>>>> are
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments
>> seem
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and natural
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Polovtcev
>> <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>> >>>>>>>>>> some
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>> >>>>>>>>>> them
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kulichenko <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite
>> 2.x
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>> 3.x
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will coexist
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repos, but
>> >>>>>>>>>> we
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same
>> Jira
>> >>>>>>>>>> project,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which seems to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the
>> label
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a
>> >>>>>>>>>> new
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separation.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we
>> use
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>> single
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space for
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pages
>> >>>>>>>> there.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>
>
--
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>.
Ivan,
I'm not pushing, I'm trying to apply the lazy consensus. It soon will be a
whole month since I've started the discussion - more than enough to express
concerns and provide alternative suggestions. Please keep in mind that we
are trying to address a very specific technical problem that influences the
development. "Do nothing" is not really an option here.
Either way, I will put the initial suggestion for the vote.
-Val
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 12:24 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Val,
>
> > Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear
> picture on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
>
> For a moment I felt that the proposal is pushed. Let's not do so. The
> subject is very important, years impact I suppose. And the best way
> here is to reach absolute consensus. Without tight timelines so far.
> In case if we fail with consensus we can arrange formal voting.
>
> 2021-09-29 14:34 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
> > I am watching how Apache Ignite does evolve for over a 3 years already
> and
> > see that such hidden (almost no Open Source Community points could be
> > achieved for refactoring and addressing something that is not directly
> > project's source executable code) issues drown under constant pressure of
> > new features and releases.
> >
> > I have never created issues for Maven build refactoring (for instanced)
> > because I understand that 1) it is almost impossible for current tech
> debt
> > already accumulated and 2) to won't be welcomed by community because of
> > indirect relationship to main project's goals.
> > Considering other parts, please, note [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7],
> [8]
> > and many many more issues that have no separate ticket.
> >
> > My point — such technical debt is overwhelming and will be never ever
> > approached.
> > That is one of the reasons why Ignite 3 being built from scratch, having
> in
> > mind all mistakes we've already made and lots of errors we will never do
> > just because there would be no legacy basic for that.
> >
> >
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7190
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7326
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7672
> > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8496
> > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9866
> > [6] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10600
> > [7] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10683
> > [8] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10696
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 29 Sep 2021, at 14:14, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade?
> >>
> >> I’m not aware of the issues.
> >> Can you, please, send a tickets or description of existing issues?
> >> Anyway, it seems change of build tool can be done at any time we want
> >>
> >>> — issues related to run scripts?
> >>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts?
> >>
> >> I’m not aware of those too.
> >> Can you point to then, please?
> >>
> >>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too?
> >>
> >> Yes, from my point of view.
> >>
> >>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 14:03, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
> написал(а):
> >>>
> >>> And what about:
> >>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade?
> >>> — issues related to run scripts?
> >>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts?
> >>>
> >>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too?
> >>>
> >>>> On 29 Sep 2021, at 13:47, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt
> >>>>> addressing
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, of course.
> >>>>
> >>>> My vision was the following (from the bird eye):
> >>>>
> >>>> - 2.20 - removals of LOCAL caches, MVCC and other abandoned features.
> >>>> (User API doesn’t change).
> >>>> - 2.30 - replace static XML configuration with the new dynamic
> >>>> approach.
> >>>> - 2.40 - replace H2 SQL engine with the Calcite
> >>>>
> >>>> etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> Versions depends on feature readiness.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway, I step back with the initial Ignite3 development, because,
> don’t
> >>>> want to interfere the progress.
> >>>>
> >>>> Respect to the developers who have courage to develop such complex
> >>>> things from scratch.
> >>>>
> >>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 12:55, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> написал(а):
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I believe that we should improve Ignite evolutionary and not
> >>>>>> revolutionary.
> >>>>>> First of all, change user API with the slow improvements step by
> >>>>>> step.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nikolay,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt
> >>>>> addressing?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 11:43, Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>>>>>> <il...@gmail.com> написал(а):
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hello!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If we go the second route, we can call the field "Generation".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Generation: Ignite 2.x
> >>>>>>> Generation: Ignite 3
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (no new tickets should ever be filed for Ignite 1.x but if they
> are,
> >>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>> should go to the first Generation)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards.
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ср, 29 сент. 2021 г. в 00:33, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As for the original topic, we need to come to a solution. Let me
> >>>>>>>> summarize
> >>>>>>>> what we've discussed so far.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -PROBLEM-
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ignite 3 is the next major version of Apache Ignite. It targets
> the
> >>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>> use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2. At
> the
> >>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>> time, Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate projects.
> >>>>>>>> They are
> >>>>>>>> developed in different repositories (and therefore are based on
> >>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>> codebases) and implement different internal architectures. To
> >>>>>>>> achieve a
> >>>>>>>> more efficient development process, we need to create a clear
> >>>>>>>> separation
> >>>>>>>> between 2.x and 3.x within *development resources* (Jira and
> >>>>>>>> Confluence).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS-
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1. Create a separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite
> 3
> >>>>>>>> (initial suggestion).
> >>>>>>>> 2. Add a *mandatory* field in Jira to identify whether a ticket
> >>>>>>>> belongs to
> >>>>>>>> 2.x or 3.x.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If we go with #2, there are still several things to figure out:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - What is the name of this field? It needs to be intuitive to
> anyone
> >>>>>>>> who
> >>>>>>>> joins the community.
> >>>>>>>> - We need to make sure that Ignite 3 tickets are not mapped to 2.x
> >>>>>>>> versions, and vice versa. Can we restrict this in Jira? Or we will
> >>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> monitor this manually?
> >>>>>>>> - What do we do with Confluence?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial
> suggestion:
> >>>>>>>> if you
> >>>>>>>> still prefer the second option, could you please address the
> points
> >>>>>>>> above?
> >>>>>>>> I don't think it can be treated as an actual suggestion until we
> >>>>>>>> cover
> >>>>>>>> these details.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear
> >>>>>>>> picture
> >>>>>>>> on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Folks,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current scheme
> in
> >>>>>>>>> March
> >>>>>>>>> [1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a new
> >>>>>>>>> thread
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>> present your suggestions.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov <
> mr.weider@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Seems rational.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like
> >>>>>>>>>> similar or
> >>>>>>>>>> error in either version...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and
> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>> 3
> >>>>>>>>>>> will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <
> vololo100@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
> >>>>>>>> e.g.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>> clash.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr.weider@gmail.com
> >:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most
> >>>>>>>>>> intuitive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sa...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were to
> >>>>>>>>>> come
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite-kernel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of
> something
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiled for
> >>>>>>>>>> high
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughput accelerators
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saikat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my
> >>>>>>>> knowledge).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else
> >>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technicality.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>>> really
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
> >>>>>>>> with a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what others think.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dm...@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create
> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two
> >>>>>>>> predefined
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better
> name,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>> needs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disturbs
> >>>>>>>>>> me
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the
> >>>>>>>> recently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disturbing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed
> two
> >>>>>>>>>> separate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>>>>> split
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repo for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared the codebase.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just
> >>>>>>>>>> transitioned
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different
> >>>>>>>> tickets.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3
> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly
> >>>>>>>>>> mentioned,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
> >>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's
> >>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely
> >>>>>>>> orthogonal.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our
> tooling
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket management.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <
> >>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a
> >>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high-performance
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>> thus,
> >>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is
> >>>>>>>>>> how
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
> >>>>>>>> on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover,
> >>>>>>>>>> many
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite
> 3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
> >>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
> >>>>>>>>>> mmuzaf@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under
> >>>>>>>> Ignite's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brand
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the
> development
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero.
> >>>>>>>>>> However,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values?
> >>>>>>>> Why
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current
> >>>>>>>>>> features?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 2
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> honestly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems
> >>>>>>>> counterproductive
> >>>>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's
> >>>>>>>>>> discuss
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why
> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called
> >>>>>>>>>> "Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different
> focus
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> values
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name.
> >>>>>>>>>> All is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as
> >>>>>>>>>> "Ignite3" is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another project?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite
> and
> >>>>>>>> Ignite3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coexists?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <
> >>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jira
> >>>>>>>>>> project
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kulichenko <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (that
> >>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments
> seem
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and natural
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev
> <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>> some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where
> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
> >>>>>>>>>> them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kulichenko <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite
> 2.x
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> 3.x
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will coexist
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repos, but
> >>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same
> Jira
> >>>>>>>>>> project,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which seems to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the
> label
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a
> >>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we
> use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>> single
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pages
> >>>>>>>> there.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>.
Val,
> Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear picture on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
For a moment I felt that the proposal is pushed. Let's not do so. The
subject is very important, years impact I suppose. And the best way
here is to reach absolute consensus. Without tight timelines so far.
In case if we fail with consensus we can arrange formal voting.
2021-09-29 14:34 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
> I am watching how Apache Ignite does evolve for over a 3 years already and
> see that such hidden (almost no Open Source Community points could be
> achieved for refactoring and addressing something that is not directly
> project's source executable code) issues drown under constant pressure of
> new features and releases.
>
> I have never created issues for Maven build refactoring (for instanced)
> because I understand that 1) it is almost impossible for current tech debt
> already accumulated and 2) to won't be welcomed by community because of
> indirect relationship to main project's goals.
> Considering other parts, please, note [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]
> and many many more issues that have no separate ticket.
>
> My point — such technical debt is overwhelming and will be never ever
> approached.
> That is one of the reasons why Ignite 3 being built from scratch, having in
> mind all mistakes we've already made and lots of errors we will never do
> just because there would be no legacy basic for that.
>
>
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7190
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7326
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7672
> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8496
> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9866
> [6] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10600
> [7] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10683
> [8] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10696
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 29 Sep 2021, at 14:14, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade?
>>
>> I’m not aware of the issues.
>> Can you, please, send a tickets or description of existing issues?
>> Anyway, it seems change of build tool can be done at any time we want
>>
>>> — issues related to run scripts?
>>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts?
>>
>> I’m not aware of those too.
>> Can you point to then, please?
>>
>>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too?
>>
>> Yes, from my point of view.
>>
>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 14:03, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>>>
>>> And what about:
>>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade?
>>> — issues related to run scripts?
>>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts?
>>>
>>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too?
>>>
>>>> On 29 Sep 2021, at 13:47, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt
>>>>> addressing
>>>>
>>>> Yes, of course.
>>>>
>>>> My vision was the following (from the bird eye):
>>>>
>>>> - 2.20 - removals of LOCAL caches, MVCC and other abandoned features.
>>>> (User API doesn’t change).
>>>> - 2.30 - replace static XML configuration with the new dynamic
>>>> approach.
>>>> - 2.40 - replace H2 SQL engine with the Calcite
>>>>
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> Versions depends on feature readiness.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I step back with the initial Ignite3 development, because, don’t
>>>> want to interfere the progress.
>>>>
>>>> Respect to the developers who have courage to develop such complex
>>>> things from scratch.
>>>>
>>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 12:55, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
>>>>> написал(а):
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe that we should improve Ignite evolutionary and not
>>>>>> revolutionary.
>>>>>> First of all, change user API with the slow improvements step by
>>>>>> step.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>>
>>>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt
>>>>> addressing?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 11:43, Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>> <il...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we go the second route, we can call the field "Generation".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Generation: Ignite 2.x
>>>>>>> Generation: Ignite 3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (no new tickets should ever be filed for Ignite 1.x but if they are,
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> should go to the first Generation)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ср, 29 сент. 2021 г. в 00:33, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for the original topic, we need to come to a solution. Let me
>>>>>>>> summarize
>>>>>>>> what we've discussed so far.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -PROBLEM-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ignite 3 is the next major version of Apache Ignite. It targets the
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>> use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2. At the
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>> time, Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate projects.
>>>>>>>> They are
>>>>>>>> developed in different repositories (and therefore are based on
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>> codebases) and implement different internal architectures. To
>>>>>>>> achieve a
>>>>>>>> more efficient development process, we need to create a clear
>>>>>>>> separation
>>>>>>>> between 2.x and 3.x within *development resources* (Jira and
>>>>>>>> Confluence).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Create a separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3
>>>>>>>> (initial suggestion).
>>>>>>>> 2. Add a *mandatory* field in Jira to identify whether a ticket
>>>>>>>> belongs to
>>>>>>>> 2.x or 3.x.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we go with #2, there are still several things to figure out:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - What is the name of this field? It needs to be intuitive to anyone
>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> joins the community.
>>>>>>>> - We need to make sure that Ignite 3 tickets are not mapped to 2.x
>>>>>>>> versions, and vice versa. Can we restrict this in Jira? Or we will
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> monitor this manually?
>>>>>>>> - What do we do with Confluence?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial suggestion:
>>>>>>>> if you
>>>>>>>> still prefer the second option, could you please address the points
>>>>>>>> above?
>>>>>>>> I don't think it can be treated as an actual suggestion until we
>>>>>>>> cover
>>>>>>>> these details.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear
>>>>>>>> picture
>>>>>>>> on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current scheme in
>>>>>>>>> March
>>>>>>>>> [1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a new
>>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> present your suggestions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Seems rational.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like
>>>>>>>>>> similar or
>>>>>>>>>> error in either version...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>> will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>> How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> clash.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most
>>>>>>>>>> intuitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sa...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were to
>>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite-kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compiled for
>>>>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughput accelerators
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saikat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my
>>>>>>>> knowledge).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technicality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what others think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two
>>>>>>>> predefined
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disturbs
>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the
>>>>>>>> recently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disturbing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two
>>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>> split
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repo for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared the codebase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just
>>>>>>>>>> transitioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different
>>>>>>>> tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly
>>>>>>>>>> mentioned,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely
>>>>>>>> orthogonal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a
>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high-performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> thus,
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is
>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moreover,
>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
>>>>>>>>>> mmuzaf@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under
>>>>>>>> Ignite's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero.
>>>>>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values?
>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current
>>>>>>>>>> features?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 2
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> honestly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems
>>>>>>>> counterproductive
>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's
>>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> values
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name.
>>>>>>>>>> All is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as
>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite3" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and
>>>>>>>> Ignite3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coexists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <
>>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jira
>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (that
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put
>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will coexist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repos, but
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira
>>>>>>>>>> project,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pages
>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>.
I am watching how Apache Ignite does evolve for over a 3 years already and see that such hidden (almost no Open Source Community points could be achieved for refactoring and addressing something that is not directly project's source executable code) issues drown under constant pressure of new features and releases.
I have never created issues for Maven build refactoring (for instanced) because I understand that 1) it is almost impossible for current tech debt already accumulated and 2) to won't be welcomed by community because of indirect relationship to main project's goals.
Considering other parts, please, note [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and many many more issues that have no separate ticket.
My point — such technical debt is overwhelming and will be never ever approached.
That is one of the reasons why Ignite 3 being built from scratch, having in mind all mistakes we've already made and lots of errors we will never do just because there would be no legacy basic for that.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7190
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7326
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7672
[4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8496
[5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9866
[6] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10600
[7] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10683
[8] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10696
> On 29 Sep 2021, at 14:14, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade?
>
> I’m not aware of the issues.
> Can you, please, send a tickets or description of existing issues?
> Anyway, it seems change of build tool can be done at any time we want
>
>> — issues related to run scripts?
>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts?
>
> I’m not aware of those too.
> Can you point to then, please?
>
>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too?
>
> Yes, from my point of view.
>
>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 14:03, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>>
>> And what about:
>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade?
>> — issues related to run scripts?
>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts?
>>
>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too?
>>
>>> On 29 Sep 2021, at 13:47, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt addressing
>>>
>>> Yes, of course.
>>>
>>> My vision was the following (from the bird eye):
>>>
>>> - 2.20 - removals of LOCAL caches, MVCC and other abandoned features. (User API doesn’t change).
>>> - 2.30 - replace static XML configuration with the new dynamic approach.
>>> - 2.40 - replace H2 SQL engine with the Calcite
>>>
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Versions depends on feature readiness.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I step back with the initial Ignite3 development, because, don’t want to interfere the progress.
>>>
>>> Respect to the developers who have courage to develop such complex things from scratch.
>>>
>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 12:55, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I believe that we should improve Ignite evolutionary and not revolutionary.
>>>>> First of all, change user API with the slow improvements step by step.
>>>>
>>>> Nikolay,
>>>>
>>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt addressing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 11:43, Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we go the second route, we can call the field "Generation".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Generation: Ignite 2.x
>>>>>> Generation: Ignite 3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (no new tickets should ever be filed for Ignite 1.x but if they are, they
>>>>>> should go to the first Generation)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ср, 29 сент. 2021 г. в 00:33, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for the original topic, we need to come to a solution. Let me summarize
>>>>>>> what we've discussed so far.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -PROBLEM-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ignite 3 is the next major version of Apache Ignite. It targets the same
>>>>>>> use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2. At the same
>>>>>>> time, Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate projects. They are
>>>>>>> developed in different repositories (and therefore are based on different
>>>>>>> codebases) and implement different internal architectures. To achieve a
>>>>>>> more efficient development process, we need to create a clear separation
>>>>>>> between 2.x and 3.x within *development resources* (Jira and Confluence).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Create a separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3
>>>>>>> (initial suggestion).
>>>>>>> 2. Add a *mandatory* field in Jira to identify whether a ticket belongs to
>>>>>>> 2.x or 3.x.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we go with #2, there are still several things to figure out:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - What is the name of this field? It needs to be intuitive to anyone who
>>>>>>> joins the community.
>>>>>>> - We need to make sure that Ignite 3 tickets are not mapped to 2.x
>>>>>>> versions, and vice versa. Can we restrict this in Jira? Or we will have
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> monitor this manually?
>>>>>>> - What do we do with Confluence?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial suggestion: if you
>>>>>>> still prefer the second option, could you please address the points above?
>>>>>>> I don't think it can be treated as an actual suggestion until we cover
>>>>>>> these details.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear picture
>>>>>>> on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current scheme in March
>>>>>>>> [1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a new thread
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> present your suggestions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Seems rational.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like similar or
>>>>>>>>> error in either version...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and Ignite 3
>>>>>>>>>> will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>> How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning scheme,
>>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will not
>>>>>>> clash.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most
>>>>>>>>> intuitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to
>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite-kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for
>>>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughput accelerators
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saikat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my
>>>>>>> knowledge).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else
>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technicality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't
>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up
>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what others think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two
>>>>>>> predefined
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it
>>>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs
>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the
>>>>>>> recently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two
>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases. The
>>>>>>>>> split
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as
>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared the codebase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just
>>>>>>>>> transitioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different
>>>>>>> tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly
>>>>>>>>> mentioned,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time,
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely
>>>>>>> orthogonal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a
>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high-performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs -
>>>>>>> thus,
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is
>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover,
>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
>>>>>>>>> mmuzaf@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under
>>>>>>> Ignite's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero.
>>>>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different values?
>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current
>>>>>>>>> features?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> honestly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems
>>>>>>> counterproductive
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's
>>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called
>>>>>>>>> "Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and
>>>>>>>>> values
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a
>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name.
>>>>>>>>> All is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as
>>>>>>>>> "Ignite3" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and
>>>>>>> Ignite3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coexists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <
>>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira
>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already have
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where to put
>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and
>>>>>>>>> 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will coexist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira
>>>>>>>>> project,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a
>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a
>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages
>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>.
> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade?
I’m not aware of the issues.
Can you, please, send a tickets or description of existing issues?
Anyway, it seems change of build tool can be done at any time we want
> — issues related to run scripts?
> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts?
I’m not aware of those too.
Can you point to then, please?
> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too?
Yes, from my point of view.
> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 14:03, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>
> And what about:
> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade?
> — issues related to run scripts?
> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts?
>
> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too?
>
>> On 29 Sep 2021, at 13:47, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt addressing
>>
>> Yes, of course.
>>
>> My vision was the following (from the bird eye):
>>
>> - 2.20 - removals of LOCAL caches, MVCC and other abandoned features. (User API doesn’t change).
>> - 2.30 - replace static XML configuration with the new dynamic approach.
>> - 2.40 - replace H2 SQL engine with the Calcite
>>
>> etc.
>>
>> Versions depends on feature readiness.
>>
>> Anyway, I step back with the initial Ignite3 development, because, don’t want to interfere the progress.
>>
>> Respect to the developers who have courage to develop such complex things from scratch.
>>
>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 12:55, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>>>
>>>
>>>> I believe that we should improve Ignite evolutionary and not revolutionary.
>>>> First of all, change user API with the slow improvements step by step.
>>>
>>> Nikolay,
>>>
>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt addressing?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 11:43, Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>
>>>>> If we go the second route, we can call the field "Generation".
>>>>>
>>>>> Generation: Ignite 2.x
>>>>> Generation: Ignite 3
>>>>>
>>>>> (no new tickets should ever be filed for Ignite 1.x but if they are, they
>>>>> should go to the first Generation)
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ср, 29 сент. 2021 г. в 00:33, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the original topic, we need to come to a solution. Let me summarize
>>>>>> what we've discussed so far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -PROBLEM-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ignite 3 is the next major version of Apache Ignite. It targets the same
>>>>>> use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2. At the same
>>>>>> time, Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate projects. They are
>>>>>> developed in different repositories (and therefore are based on different
>>>>>> codebases) and implement different internal architectures. To achieve a
>>>>>> more efficient development process, we need to create a clear separation
>>>>>> between 2.x and 3.x within *development resources* (Jira and Confluence).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Create a separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3
>>>>>> (initial suggestion).
>>>>>> 2. Add a *mandatory* field in Jira to identify whether a ticket belongs to
>>>>>> 2.x or 3.x.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we go with #2, there are still several things to figure out:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - What is the name of this field? It needs to be intuitive to anyone who
>>>>>> joins the community.
>>>>>> - We need to make sure that Ignite 3 tickets are not mapped to 2.x
>>>>>> versions, and vice versa. Can we restrict this in Jira? Or we will have
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> monitor this manually?
>>>>>> - What do we do with Confluence?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial suggestion: if you
>>>>>> still prefer the second option, could you please address the points above?
>>>>>> I don't think it can be treated as an actual suggestion until we cover
>>>>>> these details.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear picture
>>>>>> on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current scheme in March
>>>>>>> [1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a new thread
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> present your suggestions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seems rational.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like similar or
>>>>>>>> error in either version...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and Ignite 3
>>>>>>>>> will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>> How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning scheme,
>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will not
>>>>>> clash.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most
>>>>>>>> intuitive
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to
>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite-kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for
>>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>>>>>>>> throughput accelerators
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saikat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my
>>>>>> knowledge).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else
>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technicality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't
>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up
>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what others think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two
>>>>>> predefined
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it
>>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs
>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the
>>>>>> recently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two
>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases. The
>>>>>>>> split
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as
>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared the codebase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just
>>>>>>>> transitioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or
>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different
>>>>>> tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly
>>>>>>>> mentioned,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time,
>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's
>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely
>>>>>> orthogonal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> high-performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs -
>>>>>> thus,
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover,
>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only
>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
>>>>>>>> mmuzaf@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under
>>>>>> Ignite's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero.
>>>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different values?
>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current
>>>>>>>> features?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> honestly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems
>>>>>> counterproductive
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's
>>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called
>>>>>>>> "Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and
>>>>>>>> values
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a
>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name.
>>>>>>>> All is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as
>>>>>>>> "Ignite3" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and
>>>>>> Ignite3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coexists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <
>>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira
>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that
>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already have
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where to put
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and
>>>>>>>> 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will coexist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira
>>>>>>>> project,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a
>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a
>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages
>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>.
And what about:
— issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade?
— issues related to run scripts?
— issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts?
Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too?
> On 29 Sep 2021, at 13:47, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt addressing
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> My vision was the following (from the bird eye):
>
> - 2.20 - removals of LOCAL caches, MVCC and other abandoned features. (User API doesn’t change).
> - 2.30 - replace static XML configuration with the new dynamic approach.
> - 2.40 - replace H2 SQL engine with the Calcite
>
> etc.
>
> Versions depends on feature readiness.
>
> Anyway, I step back with the initial Ignite3 development, because, don’t want to interfere the progress.
>
> Respect to the developers who have courage to develop such complex things from scratch.
>
>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 12:55, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>>
>>
>>> I believe that we should improve Ignite evolutionary and not revolutionary.
>>> First of all, change user API with the slow improvements step by step.
>>
>> Nikolay,
>>
>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt addressing?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 11:43, Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>>>>
>>>> Hello!
>>>>
>>>> If we go the second route, we can call the field "Generation".
>>>>
>>>> Generation: Ignite 2.x
>>>> Generation: Ignite 3
>>>>
>>>> (no new tickets should ever be filed for Ignite 1.x but if they are, they
>>>> should go to the first Generation)
>>>>
>>>> Regards.
>>>> --
>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ср, 29 сент. 2021 г. в 00:33, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> As for the original topic, we need to come to a solution. Let me summarize
>>>>> what we've discussed so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> -PROBLEM-
>>>>>
>>>>> Ignite 3 is the next major version of Apache Ignite. It targets the same
>>>>> use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2. At the same
>>>>> time, Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate projects. They are
>>>>> developed in different repositories (and therefore are based on different
>>>>> codebases) and implement different internal architectures. To achieve a
>>>>> more efficient development process, we need to create a clear separation
>>>>> between 2.x and 3.x within *development resources* (Jira and Confluence).
>>>>>
>>>>> -POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS-
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Create a separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3
>>>>> (initial suggestion).
>>>>> 2. Add a *mandatory* field in Jira to identify whether a ticket belongs to
>>>>> 2.x or 3.x.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we go with #2, there are still several things to figure out:
>>>>>
>>>>> - What is the name of this field? It needs to be intuitive to anyone who
>>>>> joins the community.
>>>>> - We need to make sure that Ignite 3 tickets are not mapped to 2.x
>>>>> versions, and vice versa. Can we restrict this in Jira? Or we will have
>>>>> to
>>>>> monitor this manually?
>>>>> - What do we do with Confluence?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial suggestion: if you
>>>>> still prefer the second option, could you please address the points above?
>>>>> I don't think it can be treated as an actual suggestion until we cover
>>>>> these details.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear picture
>>>>> on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Val
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current scheme in March
>>>>>> [1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a new thread
>>>>> and
>>>>>> present your suggestions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seems rational.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like similar or
>>>>>>> error in either version...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and Ignite 3
>>>>>>>> will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>> How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning scheme,
>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will not
>>>>> clash.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most
>>>>>>> intuitive
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for instance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to
>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite-kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of something
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for
>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>>>>>>> throughput accelerators
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Saikat
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my
>>>>> knowledge).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else
>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> technicality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't
>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up
>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what others think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two
>>>>> predefined
>>>>>>>>>>>>> values -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it
>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs
>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the
>>>>> recently
>>>>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two
>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases. The
>>>>>>> split
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as
>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared the codebase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just
>>>>>>> transitioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or
>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different
>>>>> tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly
>>>>>>> mentioned,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time,
>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely
>>>>> orthogonal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <
>>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a
>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> high-performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs -
>>>>> thus,
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is
>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work
>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover,
>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only
>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
>>>>>>> mmuzaf@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under
>>>>> Ignite's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This
>>>>> is
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero.
>>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different values?
>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current
>>>>>>> features?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> honestly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems
>>>>> counterproductive
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's
>>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> here?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called
>>>>>>> "Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and
>>>>>>> values
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a
>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name.
>>>>>>> All is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as
>>>>>>> "Ignite3" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and
>>>>> Ignite3
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coexists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <
>>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira
>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that
>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already have
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where to put
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and
>>>>>>> 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will coexist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but
>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira
>>>>>>> project,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a
>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a
>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages
>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>.
> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt addressing
Yes, of course.
My vision was the following (from the bird eye):
- 2.20 - removals of LOCAL caches, MVCC and other abandoned features. (User API doesn’t change).
- 2.30 - replace static XML configuration with the new dynamic approach.
- 2.40 - replace H2 SQL engine with the Calcite
etc.
Versions depends on feature readiness.
Anyway, I step back with the initial Ignite3 development, because, don’t want to interfere the progress.
Respect to the developers who have courage to develop such complex things from scratch.
> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 12:55, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>
>
>> I believe that we should improve Ignite evolutionary and not revolutionary.
>> First of all, change user API with the slow improvements step by step.
>
> Nikolay,
>
> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt addressing?
>
>
>>
>>
>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 11:43, Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> If we go the second route, we can call the field "Generation".
>>>
>>> Generation: Ignite 2.x
>>> Generation: Ignite 3
>>>
>>> (no new tickets should ever be filed for Ignite 1.x but if they are, they
>>> should go to the first Generation)
>>>
>>> Regards.
>>> --
>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>
>>>
>>> ср, 29 сент. 2021 г. в 00:33, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> As for the original topic, we need to come to a solution. Let me summarize
>>>> what we've discussed so far.
>>>>
>>>> -PROBLEM-
>>>>
>>>> Ignite 3 is the next major version of Apache Ignite. It targets the same
>>>> use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2. At the same
>>>> time, Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate projects. They are
>>>> developed in different repositories (and therefore are based on different
>>>> codebases) and implement different internal architectures. To achieve a
>>>> more efficient development process, we need to create a clear separation
>>>> between 2.x and 3.x within *development resources* (Jira and Confluence).
>>>>
>>>> -POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS-
>>>>
>>>> 1. Create a separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3
>>>> (initial suggestion).
>>>> 2. Add a *mandatory* field in Jira to identify whether a ticket belongs to
>>>> 2.x or 3.x.
>>>>
>>>> If we go with #2, there are still several things to figure out:
>>>>
>>>> - What is the name of this field? It needs to be intuitive to anyone who
>>>> joins the community.
>>>> - We need to make sure that Ignite 3 tickets are not mapped to 2.x
>>>> versions, and vice versa. Can we restrict this in Jira? Or we will have
>>>> to
>>>> monitor this manually?
>>>> - What do we do with Confluence?
>>>>
>>>> Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial suggestion: if you
>>>> still prefer the second option, could you please address the points above?
>>>> I don't think it can be treated as an actual suggestion until we cover
>>>> these details.
>>>>
>>>> Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear picture
>>>> on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
>>>>
>>>> -Val
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current scheme in March
>>>>> [1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a new thread
>>>> and
>>>>> present your suggestions.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>>
>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
>>>>>
>>>>> -Val
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems rational.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like similar or
>>>>>> error in either version...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and Ignite 3
>>>>>>> will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>> How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning scheme,
>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will not
>>>> clash.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most
>>>>>> intuitive
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for instance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to
>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite-kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of something
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for
>>>>>> high
>>>>>>>>>>> throughput accelerators
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Saikat
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my
>>>> knowledge).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else
>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> technicality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't
>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up
>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what others think.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two
>>>> predefined
>>>>>>>>>>>> values -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it
>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs
>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the
>>>> recently
>>>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two
>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases. The
>>>>>> split
>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as
>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared the codebase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just
>>>>>> transitioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or
>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different
>>>> tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just
>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly
>>>>>> mentioned,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time,
>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's
>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely
>>>> orthogonal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <
>>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a
>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
>>>>>>>>>>>> high-performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs -
>>>> thus,
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is
>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work
>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover,
>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only
>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
>>>>>> mmuzaf@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under
>>>> Ignite's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This
>>>> is
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero.
>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different values?
>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current
>>>>>> features?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>>> why is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> honestly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems
>>>> counterproductive
>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's
>>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are
>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> here?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called
>>>>>> "Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>> <some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and
>>>>>> values
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a
>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name.
>>>>>> All is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as
>>>>>> "Ignite3" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and
>>>> Ignite3
>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coexists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <
>>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira
>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that
>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already have
>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where to put
>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and
>>>>>> 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will coexist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira
>>>>>> project,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a
>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a
>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new
>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages
>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>.
> I believe that we should improve Ignite evolutionary and not revolutionary.
> First of all, change user API with the slow improvements step by step.
Nikolay,
Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt addressing?
>
>
>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 11:43, Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> If we go the second route, we can call the field "Generation".
>>
>> Generation: Ignite 2.x
>> Generation: Ignite 3
>>
>> (no new tickets should ever be filed for Ignite 1.x but if they are, they
>> should go to the first Generation)
>>
>> Regards.
>> --
>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>
>>
>> ср, 29 сент. 2021 г. в 00:33, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> As for the original topic, we need to come to a solution. Let me summarize
>>> what we've discussed so far.
>>>
>>> -PROBLEM-
>>>
>>> Ignite 3 is the next major version of Apache Ignite. It targets the same
>>> use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2. At the same
>>> time, Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate projects. They are
>>> developed in different repositories (and therefore are based on different
>>> codebases) and implement different internal architectures. To achieve a
>>> more efficient development process, we need to create a clear separation
>>> between 2.x and 3.x within *development resources* (Jira and Confluence).
>>>
>>> -POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS-
>>>
>>> 1. Create a separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3
>>> (initial suggestion).
>>> 2. Add a *mandatory* field in Jira to identify whether a ticket belongs to
>>> 2.x or 3.x.
>>>
>>> If we go with #2, there are still several things to figure out:
>>>
>>> - What is the name of this field? It needs to be intuitive to anyone who
>>> joins the community.
>>> - We need to make sure that Ignite 3 tickets are not mapped to 2.x
>>> versions, and vice versa. Can we restrict this in Jira? Or we will have
>>> to
>>> monitor this manually?
>>> - What do we do with Confluence?
>>>
>>> Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial suggestion: if you
>>> still prefer the second option, could you please address the points above?
>>> I don't think it can be treated as an actual suggestion until we cover
>>> these details.
>>>
>>> Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear picture
>>> on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
>>>
>>> -Val
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current scheme in March
>>>> [1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a new thread
>>> and
>>>> present your suggestions.
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
>>>>
>>>> -Val
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Seems rational.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like similar or
>>>>> error in either version...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and Ignite 3
>>>>>> will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>> How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning scheme,
>>> e.g.
>>>>>>>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will not
>>> clash.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most
>>>>> intuitive
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for instance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to
>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ignite-kernel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of something
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for
>>>>> high
>>>>>>>>>> throughput accelerators
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Saikat
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my
>>> knowledge).
>>>>>>>>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else
>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>> technicality.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't
>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up
>>> with a
>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what others think.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
>>>>>>>>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two
>>> predefined
>>>>>>>>>>> values -
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it
>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs
>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the
>>> recently
>>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two
>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases. The
>>>>> split
>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as
>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared the codebase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just
>>>>> transitioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or
>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different
>>> tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just
>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly
>>>>> mentioned,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time,
>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's
>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely
>>> orthogonal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <
>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a
>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
>>>>>>>>>>> high-performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs -
>>> thus,
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is
>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work
>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover,
>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>> tickets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only
>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
>>>>> mmuzaf@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under
>>> Ignite's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This
>>> is
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero.
>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different values?
>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current
>>>>> features?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>>> why is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I
>>>>>>>>>>> honestly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems
>>> counterproductive
>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's
>>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are
>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> here?
>>>>>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called
>>>>> "Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>> <some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and
>>>>> values
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a
>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name.
>>>>> All is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as
>>>>> "Ignite3" is
>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and
>>> Ignite3
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coexists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <
>>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira
>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that
>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already have
>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where to put
>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and
>>>>> 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will coexist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira
>>>>> project,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>> tickets,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a
>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a
>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new
>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages
>>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>.
Hello, Valentin.
> Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial suggestion
It seems I don’t write my point clear.
I’m +1 to have another jira project for Ignite3.
My point is - Ignite3 is not Ignite - it just another database engine.
> Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate projects
You definition of «technically» is unclear for me.
> It targets the same use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2
I don’t believe it’s true.
I believe that we should improve Ignite evolutionary and not revolutionary.
First of all, change user API with the slow improvements step by step.
Kafka3, you mentioned, AFAIK doesn’t change user API at all, except removing deprecated methods. [1]
[1] https://www.confluent.io/blog/apache-kafka-3-0-major-improvements-and-new-features/
> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 11:43, Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com> написал(а):
>
> Hello!
>
> If we go the second route, we can call the field "Generation".
>
> Generation: Ignite 2.x
> Generation: Ignite 3
>
> (no new tickets should ever be filed for Ignite 1.x but if they are, they
> should go to the first Generation)
>
> Regards.
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> ср, 29 сент. 2021 г. в 00:33, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
>
>> As for the original topic, we need to come to a solution. Let me summarize
>> what we've discussed so far.
>>
>> -PROBLEM-
>>
>> Ignite 3 is the next major version of Apache Ignite. It targets the same
>> use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2. At the same
>> time, Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate projects. They are
>> developed in different repositories (and therefore are based on different
>> codebases) and implement different internal architectures. To achieve a
>> more efficient development process, we need to create a clear separation
>> between 2.x and 3.x within *development resources* (Jira and Confluence).
>>
>> -POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS-
>>
>> 1. Create a separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3
>> (initial suggestion).
>> 2. Add a *mandatory* field in Jira to identify whether a ticket belongs to
>> 2.x or 3.x.
>>
>> If we go with #2, there are still several things to figure out:
>>
>> - What is the name of this field? It needs to be intuitive to anyone who
>> joins the community.
>> - We need to make sure that Ignite 3 tickets are not mapped to 2.x
>> versions, and vice versa. Can we restrict this in Jira? Or we will have
>> to
>> monitor this manually?
>> - What do we do with Confluence?
>>
>> Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial suggestion: if you
>> still prefer the second option, could you please address the points above?
>> I don't think it can be treated as an actual suggestion until we cover
>> these details.
>>
>> Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear picture
>> on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
>>
>> -Val
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current scheme in March
>>> [1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a new thread
>> and
>>> present your suggestions.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>> -Val
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seems rational.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like similar or
>>>> error in either version...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and Ignite 3
>>>>> will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>> How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning scheme,
>> e.g.
>>>>>>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will not
>> clash.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most
>>>> intuitive
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for instance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to
>>>> come
>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ignite-kernel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of something
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for
>>>> high
>>>>>>>>> throughput accelerators
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Saikat
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my
>> knowledge).
>>>>>>>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else
>> is a
>>>>>>>>>> technicality.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't
>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up
>> with a
>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let's see what others think.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
>>>>>>>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two
>> predefined
>>>>>>>>>> values -
>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it
>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs
>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the
>> recently
>>>>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two
>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases. The
>>>> split
>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as
>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>> shared the codebase.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just
>>>> transitioned
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or
>> will
>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different
>> tickets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just
>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly
>>>> mentioned,
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time,
>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's
>> not
>>>>>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely
>> orthogonal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and
>>>>>>>>>>>> efficient
>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <
>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a
>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
>>>>>>>>>> high-performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs -
>> thus,
>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is
>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work
>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>> 2 we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover,
>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>> tickets
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only
>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
>>>> mmuzaf@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Val,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under
>> Ignite's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This
>> is
>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero.
>>>> However,
>>>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different values?
>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current
>>>> features?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>> why is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I
>>>>>>>>>> honestly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems
>> counterproductive
>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's
>>>> discuss
>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are
>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>> here?
>>>>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called
>>>> "Ignite
>>>>>>>>>> <some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and
>>>> values
>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a
>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name.
>>>> All is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as
>>>> "Ignite3" is
>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and
>> Ignite3
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coexists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <
>>>> dpavlov@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira
>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that
>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be
>>>>>>>>>>> logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already have
>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where to put
>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and
>>>> 3.x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will coexist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but
>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira
>>>> project,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x
>>>>>>>>>> tickets,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a
>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a
>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new
>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages
>> there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>.
Hello!
If we go the second route, we can call the field "Generation".
Generation: Ignite 2.x
Generation: Ignite 3
(no new tickets should ever be filed for Ignite 1.x but if they are, they
should go to the first Generation)
Regards.
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
ср, 29 сент. 2021 г. в 00:33, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> As for the original topic, we need to come to a solution. Let me summarize
> what we've discussed so far.
>
> -PROBLEM-
>
> Ignite 3 is the next major version of Apache Ignite. It targets the same
> use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2. At the same
> time, Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate projects. They are
> developed in different repositories (and therefore are based on different
> codebases) and implement different internal architectures. To achieve a
> more efficient development process, we need to create a clear separation
> between 2.x and 3.x within *development resources* (Jira and Confluence).
>
> -POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS-
>
> 1. Create a separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3
> (initial suggestion).
> 2. Add a *mandatory* field in Jira to identify whether a ticket belongs to
> 2.x or 3.x.
>
> If we go with #2, there are still several things to figure out:
>
> - What is the name of this field? It needs to be intuitive to anyone who
> joins the community.
> - We need to make sure that Ignite 3 tickets are not mapped to 2.x
> versions, and vice versa. Can we restrict this in Jira? Or we will have
> to
> monitor this manually?
> - What do we do with Confluence?
>
> Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial suggestion: if you
> still prefer the second option, could you please address the points above?
> I don't think it can be treated as an actual suggestion until we cover
> these details.
>
> Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear picture
> on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
>
> -Val
>
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current scheme in March
> > [1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a new thread
> and
> > present your suggestions.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Seems rational.
> >>
> >>
> >> But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like similar or
> >> error in either version...
> >>
> >>
> >> > On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and Ignite 3
> >> > will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on.
> >> >
> >> > 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
> >> >> How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
> >> >>
> >> >>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning scheme,
> e.g.
> >> >>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will not
> clash.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
> >> >>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most
> >> intuitive
> >> >>>> and
> >> >>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for instance.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Hi,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to
> >> come
> >> >>>>> up
> >> >>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Ignite-kernel
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of something
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for
> >> high
> >> >>>>> throughput accelerators
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Regards,
> >> >>>>> Saikat
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> >>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my
> knowledge).
> >> >>>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else
> is a
> >> >>>>>> technicality.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't
> >> really
> >> >>>>>> see
> >> >>>>>> a
> >> >>>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up
> with a
> >> >>>>>> name
> >> >>>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Let's see what others think.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> -Val
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
> >> >>>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two
> predefined
> >> >>>>>> values -
> >> >>>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it
> >> needs
> >> >>>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>> be
> >> >>>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs
> >> me
> >> >>>>>>> is
> >> >>>>>> that
> >> >>>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the
> recently
> >> >>>>>> released
> >> >>>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> -
> >> >>>>>>> Denis
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> >>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Denis,
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two
> >> separate
> >> >>>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases. The
> >> split
> >> >>>>>> you're
> >> >>>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for
> >> >>>>>>>> Ignite
> >> >>>>>> 3.
> >> >>>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as
> these
> >> >>>>>>>> two
> >> >>>>>>>> shared the codebase.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just
> >> transitioned
> >> >>>>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or
> will
> >> >>>>>> require
> >> >>>>>>> a
> >> >>>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different
> tickets.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just
> >> >>>>>> different
> >> >>>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly
> >> mentioned,
> >> >>>>>>>> they
> >> >>>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time,
> they
> >> >>>>>>>> are
> >> >>>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's
> not
> >> >>>>>> confuse
> >> >>>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely
> orthogonal.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
> >> >>>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and
> >> >>>>>>>> efficient
> >> >>>>>>>> ticket management.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> -Val
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org>
> >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a
> >> different
> >> >>>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
> >> >>>>>> high-performance
> >> >>>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs -
> thus,
> >> a
> >> >>>>>> major
> >> >>>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is
> >> how
> >> >>>>>>> you're
> >> >>>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work
> on
> >> >>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >> >>>>>>> 2 we
> >> >>>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover,
> >> many
> >> >>>>>>> tickets
> >> >>>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only
> -
> >> >>>>>>>>> which
> >> >>>>>>> is a
> >> >>>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> -
> >> >>>>>>>>> Denis
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
> >> mmuzaf@apache.org>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Val,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under
> Ignite's
> >> >>>>>>>>>> brand
> >> >>>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This
> is
> >> a
> >> >>>>>>>>>> bad
> >> >>>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions
> >> and
> >> >>>>>> even
> >> >>>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and
> >> >>>>>>>>>> release
> >> >>>>>>>>>> processes.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
> >> >>>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero.
> >> However,
> >> >>>>>> both
> >> >>>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
> >> >>>>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different values?
> Why
> >> >>>>>>> exactly
> >> >>>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current
> >> features?
> >> >>>>>>>>>> And
> >> >>>>>>> why is
> >> >>>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2
> >> and
> >> >>>>>>> Ignite 3
> >> >>>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I
> >> >>>>>> honestly
> >> >>>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems
> counterproductive
> >> at
> >> >>>>>> this
> >> >>>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's
> >> discuss
> >> >>>>>> them.
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are
> >> all
> >> >>>>>> here?
> >> >>>>>>> :)
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> >> >>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called
> >> "Ignite
> >> >>>>>> <some
> >> >>>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and
> >> values
> >> >>>>>>> which
> >> >>>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >> >>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> >> >>>>>>>> :
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a
> new
> >> >>>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name.
> >> All is
> >> >>>>>>>>>> different
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as
> >> "Ignite3" is
> >> >>>>>>> just
> >> >>>>>>>>>> another project?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and
> Ignite3
> >> >>>>>> should
> >> >>>>>>>>>> coexists?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <
> >> dpavlov@apache.org
> >> >>>>>>> :
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> >>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
> >> >>>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira
> >> project
> >> >>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
> >> >>>>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that
> are
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be
> >> >>>>>>> logical
> >> >>>>>>>>>> and natural
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
> >> >>>>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already have
> >> some
> >> >>>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where to put
> >> them
> >> >>>>>>> at
> >> >>>>>>>>>> the moment.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and
> >> 3.x
> >> >>>>>>>>>> will coexist
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but
> >> we
> >> >>>>>>>>>> still
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira
> >> project,
> >> >>>>>>>>>> which seems to
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x
> >> >>>>>> tickets,
> >> >>>>>>>>>> but this
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a
> >> new
> >> >>>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a
> >> single
> >> >>>>>>>>>> Confluence
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new
> >> >>>>>> Confluence
> >> >>>>>>>>>> space for
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages
> there.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Best regards,
> >> >>> Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >>
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>.
As for the original topic, we need to come to a solution. Let me summarize
what we've discussed so far.
-PROBLEM-
Ignite 3 is the next major version of Apache Ignite. It targets the same
use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2. At the same
time, Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate projects. They are
developed in different repositories (and therefore are based on different
codebases) and implement different internal architectures. To achieve a
more efficient development process, we need to create a clear separation
between 2.x and 3.x within *development resources* (Jira and Confluence).
-POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS-
1. Create a separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3
(initial suggestion).
2. Add a *mandatory* field in Jira to identify whether a ticket belongs to
2.x or 3.x.
If we go with #2, there are still several things to figure out:
- What is the name of this field? It needs to be intuitive to anyone who
joins the community.
- We need to make sure that Ignite 3 tickets are not mapped to 2.x
versions, and vice versa. Can we restrict this in Jira? Or we will have to
monitor this manually?
- What do we do with Confluence?
Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial suggestion: if you
still prefer the second option, could you please address the points above?
I don't think it can be treated as an actual suggestion until we cover
these details.
Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear picture
on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1.
-Val
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current scheme in March
> [1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a new thread and
> present your suggestions.
>
> [1]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
>
> -Val
>
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Seems rational.
>>
>>
>> But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like similar or
>> error in either version...
>>
>>
>> > On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and Ignite 3
>> > will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on.
>> >
>> > 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>> >> How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
>> >>
>> >>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning scheme, e.g.
>> >>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will not clash.
>> >>>
>> >>> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
>> >>>
>> >>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>> >>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most
>> intuitive
>> >>>> and
>> >>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for instance.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to
>> come
>> >>>>> up
>> >>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Ignite-kernel
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of something
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for
>> high
>> >>>>> throughput accelerators
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>> Saikat
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> >>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my knowledge).
>> >>>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else is a
>> >>>>>> technicality.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't
>> really
>> >>>>>> see
>> >>>>>> a
>> >>>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up with a
>> >>>>>> name
>> >>>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Let's see what others think.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> -Val
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
>> >>>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two predefined
>> >>>>>> values -
>> >>>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it
>> needs
>> >>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>> be
>> >>>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs
>> me
>> >>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the recently
>> >>>>>> released
>> >>>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> -
>> >>>>>>> Denis
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> >>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Denis,
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two
>> separate
>> >>>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases. The
>> split
>> >>>>>> you're
>> >>>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for
>> >>>>>>>> Ignite
>> >>>>>> 3.
>> >>>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as these
>> >>>>>>>> two
>> >>>>>>>> shared the codebase.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just
>> transitioned
>> >>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or will
>> >>>>>> require
>> >>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different tickets.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just
>> >>>>>> different
>> >>>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly
>> mentioned,
>> >>>>>>>> they
>> >>>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time, they
>> >>>>>>>> are
>> >>>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's not
>> >>>>>> confuse
>> >>>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely orthogonal.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
>> >>>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and
>> >>>>>>>> efficient
>> >>>>>>>> ticket management.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> -Val
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a
>> different
>> >>>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
>> >>>>>> high-performance
>> >>>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs - thus,
>> a
>> >>>>>> major
>> >>>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is
>> how
>> >>>>>>> you're
>> >>>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work on
>> >>>>>>>>> Ignite
>> >>>>>>> 2 we
>> >>>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover,
>> many
>> >>>>>>> tickets
>> >>>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only -
>> >>>>>>>>> which
>> >>>>>>> is a
>> >>>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> -
>> >>>>>>>>> Denis
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
>> mmuzaf@apache.org>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Val,
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under Ignite's
>> >>>>>>>>>> brand
>> >>>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This is
>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>> bad
>> >>>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions
>> and
>> >>>>>> even
>> >>>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and
>> >>>>>>>>>> release
>> >>>>>>>>>> processes.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
>> >>>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero.
>> However,
>> >>>>>> both
>> >>>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
>> >>>>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different values? Why
>> >>>>>>> exactly
>> >>>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current
>> features?
>> >>>>>>>>>> And
>> >>>>>>> why is
>> >>>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2
>> and
>> >>>>>>> Ignite 3
>> >>>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I
>> >>>>>> honestly
>> >>>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems counterproductive
>> at
>> >>>>>> this
>> >>>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's
>> discuss
>> >>>>>> them.
>> >>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are
>> all
>> >>>>>> here?
>> >>>>>>> :)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>> >>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called
>> "Ignite
>> >>>>>> <some
>> >>>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and
>> values
>> >>>>>>> which
>> >>>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> >>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>> >>>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a new
>> >>>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name.
>> All is
>> >>>>>>>>>> different
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as
>> "Ignite3" is
>> >>>>>>> just
>> >>>>>>>>>> another project?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and Ignite3
>> >>>>>> should
>> >>>>>>>>>> coexists?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <
>> dpavlov@apache.org
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> >>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
>> >>>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira
>> project
>> >>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
>> >>>>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are
>> >>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be
>> >>>>>>> logical
>> >>>>>>>>>> and natural
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
>> >>>>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already have
>> some
>> >>>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where to put
>> them
>> >>>>>>> at
>> >>>>>>>>>> the moment.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and
>> 3.x
>> >>>>>>>>>> will coexist
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but
>> we
>> >>>>>>>>>> still
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira
>> project,
>> >>>>>>>>>> which seems to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x
>> >>>>>> tickets,
>> >>>>>>>>>> but this
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a
>> new
>> >>>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a
>> single
>> >>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new
>> >>>>>> Confluence
>> >>>>>>>>>> space for
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>>
>> >>> Best regards,
>> >>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Ivan Pavlukhin
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>.
Folks,
Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current scheme in March
[1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a new thread and
present your suggestions.
[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E
-Val
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seems rational.
>
>
> But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like similar or
> error in either version...
>
>
> > On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and Ignite 3
> > will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on.
> >
> > 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
> >> How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
> >>
> >>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning scheme, e.g.
> >>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will not clash.
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
> >>>
> >>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
> >>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most intuitive
> >>>> and
> >>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for instance.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to
> come
> >>>>> up
> >>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ignite-kernel
> >>>>>
> >>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of something
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for
> high
> >>>>> throughput accelerators
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Saikat
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my knowledge).
> >>>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else is a
> >>>>>> technicality.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't
> really
> >>>>>> see
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up with a
> >>>>>> name
> >>>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let's see what others think.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
> >>>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two predefined
> >>>>>> values -
> >>>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it needs
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs me
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the recently
> >>>>>> released
> >>>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>> Denis
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Denis,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two separate
> >>>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases. The split
> >>>>>> you're
> >>>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for
> >>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>> 3.
> >>>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as these
> >>>>>>>> two
> >>>>>>>> shared the codebase.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just
> transitioned
> >>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or will
> >>>>>> require
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different tickets.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just
> >>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly mentioned,
> >>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time, they
> >>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's not
> >>>>>> confuse
> >>>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely orthogonal.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
> >>>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and
> >>>>>>>> efficient
> >>>>>>>> ticket management.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a different
> >>>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
> >>>>>> high-performance
> >>>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs - thus, a
> >>>>>> major
> >>>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is
> how
> >>>>>>> you're
> >>>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work on
> >>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>> 2 we
> >>>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover,
> many
> >>>>>>> tickets
> >>>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only -
> >>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>>>> Denis
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <
> mmuzaf@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Val,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under Ignite's
> >>>>>>>>>> brand
> >>>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This is a
> >>>>>>>>>> bad
> >>>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions
> and
> >>>>>> even
> >>>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and
> >>>>>>>>>> release
> >>>>>>>>>> processes.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
> >>>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero.
> However,
> >>>>>> both
> >>>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
> >>>>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different values? Why
> >>>>>>> exactly
> >>>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current features?
> >>>>>>>>>> And
> >>>>>>> why is
> >>>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2
> and
> >>>>>>> Ignite 3
> >>>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I
> >>>>>> honestly
> >>>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems counterproductive
> at
> >>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's
> discuss
> >>>>>> them.
> >>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are all
> >>>>>> here?
> >>>>>>> :)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> >>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called "Ignite
> >>>>>> <some
> >>>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and
> values
> >>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
> >>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
> >>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a new
> >>>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name. All
> is
> >>>>>>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as "Ignite3"
> is
> >>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>> another project?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and Ignite3
> >>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>>> coexists?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <
> dpavlov@apache.org
> >>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
> >>>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira
> project
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
> >>>>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are
> >>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be
> >>>>>>> logical
> >>>>>>>>>> and natural
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
> >>>>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some
> >>>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where to put
> them
> >>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>>>> the moment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x
> >>>>>>>>>> will coexist
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we
> >>>>>>>>>> still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project,
> >>>>>>>>>> which seems to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x
> >>>>>> tickets,
> >>>>>>>>>> but this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a
> new
> >>>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a
> single
> >>>>>>>>>> Confluence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new
> >>>>>> Confluence
> >>>>>>>>>> space for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Ivan Pavlukhin
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ivan Pavlukhin
>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>.
Seems rational.
But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like similar or error in either version...
> On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and Ignite 3
> will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on.
>
> 2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>> How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
>>
>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning scheme, e.g.
>>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will not clash.
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
>>>
>>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
>>>>
>>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most intuitive
>>>> and
>>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for instance.
>>>>
>>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to come
>>>>> up
>>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
>>>>>
>>>>> Ignite-kernel
>>>>>
>>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of something
>>>>>
>>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for high
>>>>> throughput accelerators
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Saikat
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my knowledge).
>>>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else is a
>>>>>> technicality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't really
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up with a
>>>>>> name
>>>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's see what others think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
>>>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two predefined
>>>>>> values -
>>>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it needs
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs me
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the recently
>>>>>> released
>>>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Denis,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two separate
>>>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases. The split
>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for
>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as these
>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>> shared the codebase.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just transitioned
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or will
>>>>>> require
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different tickets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just
>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly mentioned,
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time, they
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's not
>>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely orthogonal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
>>>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and
>>>>>>>> efficient
>>>>>>>> ticket management.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a different
>>>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
>>>>>> high-performance
>>>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs - thus, a
>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is how
>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work on
>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>> 2 we
>>>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover, many
>>>>>>> tickets
>>>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only -
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <mm...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Val,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under Ignite's
>>>>>>>>>> brand
>>>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This is a
>>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions and
>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and
>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>> processes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
>>>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero. However,
>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
>>>>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different values? Why
>>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current features?
>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>> why is
>>>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2 and
>>>>>>> Ignite 3
>>>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I
>>>>>> honestly
>>>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems counterproductive at
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's discuss
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are all
>>>>>> here?
>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called "Ignite
>>>>>> <some
>>>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and values
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a new
>>>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name. All is
>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as "Ignite3" is
>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>> another project?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and Ignite3
>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>> coexists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
>>>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira project
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
>>>>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are
>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be
>>>>>>> logical
>>>>>>>>>> and natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
>>>>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some
>>>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where to put them
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>> the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x
>>>>>>>>>> will coexist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we
>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project,
>>>>>>>>>> which seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x
>>>>>> tickets,
>>>>>>>>>> but this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new
>>>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single
>>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new
>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>> space for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>.
I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and Ignite 3
will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on.
2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
> How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
>
>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning scheme, e.g.
>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will not clash.
>>
>> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
>>
>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
>>>
>>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most intuitive
>>> and
>>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for instance.
>>>
>>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to come
>>>> up
>>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
>>>>
>>>> Ignite-kernel
>>>>
>>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of something
>>>>
>>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for high
>>>> throughput accelerators
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Saikat
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my knowledge).
>>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else is a
>>>>> technicality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't really
>>>>> see
>>>>> a
>>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up with a
>>>>> name
>>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's see what others think.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Val
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
>>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two predefined
>>>>> values -
>>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it needs
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs me
>>>>>> is
>>>>> that
>>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the recently
>>>>> released
>>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Denis,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two separate
>>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases. The split
>>>>> you're
>>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for
>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>> 3.
>>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as these
>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>> shared the codebase.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just transitioned
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or will
>>>>> require
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different tickets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just
>>>>> different
>>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly mentioned,
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time, they
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's not
>>>>> confuse
>>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely orthogonal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
>>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and
>>>>>>> efficient
>>>>>>> ticket management.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a different
>>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
>>>>> high-performance
>>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs - thus, a
>>>>> major
>>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is how
>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work on
>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>> 2 we
>>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover, many
>>>>>> tickets
>>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only -
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <mm...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Val,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under Ignite's
>>>>>>>>> brand
>>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This is a
>>>>>>>>> bad
>>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions and
>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and
>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>> processes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
>>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero. However,
>>>>> both
>>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
>>>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different values? Why
>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current features?
>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>> why is
>>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2 and
>>>>>> Ignite 3
>>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I
>>>>> honestly
>>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems counterproductive at
>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's discuss
>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are all
>>>>> here?
>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called "Ignite
>>>>> <some
>>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and values
>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a new
>>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name. All is
>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
>>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
>>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
>>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
>>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
>>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
>>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
>>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as "Ignite3" is
>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> another project?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and Ignite3
>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> coexists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
>>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira project
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
>>>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are
>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be
>>>>>> logical
>>>>>>>>> and natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
>>>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some
>>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where to put them
>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x
>>>>>>>>> will coexist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we
>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project,
>>>>>>>>> which seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x
>>>>> tickets,
>>>>>>>>> but this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new
>>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single
>>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new
>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>> space for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>
>
--
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>.
How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning scheme, e.g.
> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will not clash.
>
> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
>
> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
>> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
>>
>> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most intuitive and
>> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for instance.
>>
>>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to come up
>>> with a name my other suggestion would be
>>>
>>> Ignite-kernel
>>>
>>> kernel - for the central or most important part of something
>>>
>>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for high
>>> throughput accelerators
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Saikat
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my knowledge).
>>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else is a
>>>> technicality.
>>>>
>>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't really see
>>>> a
>>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up with a name
>>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
>>>>
>>>> Let's see what others think.
>>>>
>>>> -Val
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
>>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two predefined
>>>> values -
>>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it needs to
>>>>> be
>>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs me is
>>>> that
>>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the recently
>>>> released
>>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>> Denis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Denis,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two separate
>>>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases. The split
>>>> you're
>>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for Ignite
>>>> 3.
>>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as these two
>>>>>> shared the codebase.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just transitioned to
>>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or will
>>>> require
>>>>> a
>>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different tickets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just
>>>> different
>>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly mentioned,
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time, they are
>>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's not
>>>> confuse
>>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely orthogonal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
>>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and
>>>>>> efficient
>>>>>> ticket management.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a different
>>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
>>>> high-performance
>>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs - thus, a
>>>> major
>>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is how
>>>>> you're
>>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work on
>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>> 2 we
>>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover, many
>>>>> tickets
>>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only - which
>>>>> is a
>>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <mm...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Val,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under Ignite's
>>>>>>>> brand
>>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This is a bad
>>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions and
>>>> even
>>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and release
>>>>>>>> processes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
>>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero. However,
>>>> both
>>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
>>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ilya,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different values? Why
>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current features? And
>>>>> why is
>>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2 and
>>>>> Ignite 3
>>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I
>>>> honestly
>>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems counterproductive at
>>>> this
>>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's discuss
>>>> them.
>>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are all
>>>> here?
>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called "Ignite
>>>> <some
>>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and values
>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a new
>>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name. All is
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
>>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
>>>>>>>>>>> - features.
>>>>>>>>>>> - API.
>>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
>>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
>>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
>>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
>>>>>>>>>>> - jira
>>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as "Ignite3" is
>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> another project?
>>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and Ignite3
>>>> should
>>>>>>>> coexists?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org
>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
>>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira project
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
>>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are
>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be
>>>>> logical
>>>>>>>> and natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
>>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some
>>>>>>>> pending Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where to put them
>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x
>>>>>>>> will coexist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we
>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project,
>>>>>>>> which seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x
>>>> tickets,
>>>>>>>> but this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new
>>>>>>>> ticket, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single
>>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new
>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>> space for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>.
Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning scheme, e.g.
[1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will not clash.
[1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>:
> That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
>
> Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most intuitive and
> has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for instance.
>
>> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to come up
>> with a name my other suggestion would be
>>
>> Ignite-kernel
>>
>> kernel - for the central or most important part of something
>>
>> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for high
>> throughput accelerators
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
>>
>> Regards,
>> Saikat
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my knowledge).
>>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else is a
>>> technicality.
>>>
>>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't really see
>>> a
>>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up with a name
>>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
>>>
>>> Let's see what others think.
>>>
>>> -Val
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
>>>>
>>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
>>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two predefined
>>> values -
>>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it needs to
>>>> be
>>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs me is
>>> that
>>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the recently
>>> released
>>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>> Denis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Denis,
>>>>>
>>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two separate
>>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases. The split
>>> you're
>>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for Ignite
>>> 3.
>>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as these two
>>>>> shared the codebase.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just transitioned to
>>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or will
>>> require
>>>> a
>>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different tickets.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just
>>> different
>>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly mentioned,
>>>>> they
>>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time, they are
>>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's not
>>> confuse
>>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely orthogonal.
>>>>>
>>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
>>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and
>>>>> efficient
>>>>> ticket management.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Val
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a different
>>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
>>> high-performance
>>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs - thus, a
>>> major
>>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is how
>>>> you're
>>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work on
>>>>>> Ignite
>>>> 2 we
>>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover, many
>>>> tickets
>>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only - which
>>>> is a
>>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <mm...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Val,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under Ignite's
>>>>>>> brand
>>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This is a bad
>>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions and
>>> even
>>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and release
>>>>>>> processes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
>>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero. However,
>>> both
>>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
>>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ilya,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different values? Why
>>>> exactly
>>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current features? And
>>>> why is
>>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2 and
>>>> Ignite 3
>>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I
>>> honestly
>>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems counterproductive at
>>> this
>>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's discuss
>>> them.
>>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are all
>>> here?
>>>> :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called "Ignite
>>> <some
>>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and values
>>>> which
>>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
>>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a new
>>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
>>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name. All is
>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>> - source code.
>>>>>>>>>> - repository.
>>>>>>>>>> - features.
>>>>>>>>>> - API.
>>>>>>>>>> - road map.
>>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
>>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
>>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
>>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
>>>>>>>>>> - jira
>>>>>>>>>> - confluence
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as "Ignite3" is
>>>> just
>>>>>>> another project?
>>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and Ignite3
>>> should
>>>>>>> coexists?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org
>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
>>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira project
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
>>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are
>>>>>>> Ignite2 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be
>>>> logical
>>>>>>> and natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
>>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some
>>>>>>> pending Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where to put them
>>>> at
>>>>>>> the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x
>>>>>>> will coexist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project,
>>>>>>> which seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x
>>> tickets,
>>>>>>> but this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new
>>>>>>> ticket, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single
>>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new
>>> Confluence
>>>>>>> space for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>
--
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>.
That name will definitely confuse Jira users.
Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most intuitive and has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for instance.
> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to come up
> with a name my other suggestion would be
>
> Ignite-kernel
>
> kernel - for the central or most important part of something
>
> Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for high
> throughput accelerators
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
>
> Regards,
> Saikat
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my knowledge).
>> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else is a
>> technicality.
>>
>> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't really see a
>> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up with a name
>> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
>>
>> Let's see what others think.
>>
>> -Val
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
>>>
>>> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
>>> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two predefined
>> values -
>>> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it needs to be
>>> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs me is
>> that
>>> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the recently
>> released
>>> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
>>>
>>> -
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Denis,
>>>>
>>>> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two separate
>>>> projects, because they are based on different codebases. The split
>> you're
>>>> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for Ignite
>> 3.
>>>> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as these two
>>>> shared the codebase.
>>>>
>>>> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just transitioned to
>>>> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or will
>> require
>>> a
>>>> completely different fix, which will mean two different tickets.
>>>>
>>>> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just
>> different
>>>> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly mentioned, they
>>>> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time, they are
>>>> developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's not
>> confuse
>>>> these two aspects with each other - they are largely orthogonal.
>>>>
>>>> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
>>>> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and efficient
>>>> ticket management.
>>>>
>>>> -Val
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a different
>>>>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
>> high-performance
>>>>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs - thus, a
>> major
>>>>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is how
>>> you're
>>>>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work on Ignite
>>> 2 we
>>>>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover, many
>>> tickets
>>>>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only - which
>>> is a
>>>>> version change in our JIRA.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>> Denis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <mm...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Val,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under Ignite's brand
>>>>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This is a bad
>>>>>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions and
>> even
>>>>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and release
>>>>>> processes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
>>>>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero. However,
>> both
>>>>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
>>>>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ilya,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What exactly is this different focus and different values? Why
>>> exactly
>>>>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current features? And
>>> why is
>>>>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2 and
>>> Ignite 3
>>>>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I
>> honestly
>>>>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems counterproductive at
>> this
>>>>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's discuss
>> them.
>>>>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are all
>> here?
>>> :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>>>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called "Ignite
>> <some
>>>>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and values
>>> which
>>>>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
>> nizhikov@apache.org
>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a new
>>>>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
>>>>>>>>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name. All is
>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>> - source code.
>>>>>>>>> - repository.
>>>>>>>>> - features.
>>>>>>>>> - API.
>>>>>>>>> - road map.
>>>>>>>>> - contributors.
>>>>>>>>> - contribution rules.
>>>>>>>>> - release cycle.
>>>>>>>>> *** you are here ***
>>>>>>>>> - jira
>>>>>>>>> - confluence
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as "Ignite3" is
>>> just
>>>>>> another project?
>>>>>>>>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and Ignite3
>> should
>>>>>> coexists?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org
>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> According to Infra, this has to be done through
>>>>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
>>>>>>>>>>> but only PMC chairs have access.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira project
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> Confluence space?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Infra requests created:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
>>>>>>>>>>>> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
>>>>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are
>>>>>> Ignite2 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be
>>> logical
>>>>>> and natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>> course of things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
>>>>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some
>>>>>> pending Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific documents, and it is not clear where to put them
>>> at
>>>>>> the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x
>>>>>> will coexist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we
>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project,
>>>>>> which seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicate the ticket management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x
>> tickets,
>>>>>> but this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new
>>>>>> ticket, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single
>>>>>> Confluence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new
>> Confluence
>>>>>> space for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts or objections?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aleksandr Polovtcev
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Saikat Maitra <sa...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to come up
with a name my other suggestion would be
Ignite-kernel
kernel - for the central or most important part of something
Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for high
throughput accelerators
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel
Regards,
Saikat
On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my knowledge).
> Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else is a
> technicality.
>
> Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't really see a
> difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up with a name
> that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
>
> Let's see what others think.
>
> -Val
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
> >
> > Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
> > special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two predefined
> values -
> > "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it needs to be
> > intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs me is
> that
> > neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the recently
> released
> > versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Denis,
> > >
> > > From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two separate
> > > projects, because they are based on different codebases. The split
> you're
> > > talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for Ignite
> 3.
> > > This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as these two
> > > shared the codebase.
> > >
> > > For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just transitioned to
> > > 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or will
> require
> > a
> > > completely different fix, which will mean two different tickets.
> > >
> > > That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just
> different
> > > versions of the same product, because, as you correctly mentioned, they
> > > target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time, they are
> > > developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's not
> confuse
> > > these two aspects with each other - they are largely orthogonal.
> > >
> > > At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
> > > fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and efficient
> > > ticket management.
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a different
> > >> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for
> high-performance
> > >> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs - thus, a
> major
> > >> version. Same users, community, use cases.
> > >>
> > >> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is how
> > you're
> > >> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work on Ignite
> > 2 we
> > >> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover, many
> > tickets
> > >> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only - which
> > is a
> > >> version change in our JIRA.
> > >>
> > >> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
> > >>
> > >> -
> > >> Denis
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <mm...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Val,
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't see any issues having different projects under Ignite's brand
> > >>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This is a bad
> > >>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions and
> even
> > >>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and release
> > >>> processes.
> > >>>
> > >>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
> > >>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero. However,
> both
> > >>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
> > >>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Ilya,
> > >>> >
> > >>> > What exactly is this different focus and different values? Why
> > exactly
> > >>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current features? And
> > why is
> > >>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2 and
> > Ignite 3
> > >>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I
> honestly
> > >>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems counterproductive at
> this
> > >>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's discuss
> them.
> > >>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are all
> here?
> > :)
> > >>> >
> > >>> > -Val
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > >>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Hello!
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called "Ignite
> <some
> > >>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and values
> > which
> > >>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Regards,
> > >>> >> --
> > >>> >> Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <
> nizhikov@apache.org
> > >:
> > >>> >>>
> > >>> >>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
> > >>> >>>
> > >>> >>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
> > >>> >>>
> > >>> >>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a new
> > >>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
> > >>> >>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name. All is
> > >>> different
> > >>> >>> - source code.
> > >>> >>> - repository.
> > >>> >>> - features.
> > >>> >>> - API.
> > >>> >>> - road map.
> > >>> >>> - contributors.
> > >>> >>> - contribution rules.
> > >>> >>> - release cycle.
> > >>> >>> *** you are here ***
> > >>> >>> - jira
> > >>> >>> - confluence
> > >>> >>>
> > >>> >>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as "Ignite3" is
> > just
> > >>> another project?
> > >>> >>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and Ignite3
> should
> > >>> coexists?
> > >>> >>>
> > >>> >>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov@apache.org
> >:
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>>> Sincerely,
> > >>> >>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> > >>> >>>>
> > >>> >>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> >>>> > Hi Dmitry,
> > >>> >>>> >
> > >>> >>>> > According to Infra, this has to be done through
> > >>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
> > >>> >>>> > but only PMC chairs have access.
> > >>> >>>> >
> > >>> >>>> > Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira project
> > and
> > >>> >>>> > Confluence space?
> > >>> >>>> >
> > >>> >>>> > -Val
> > >>> >>>> >
> > >>> >>>> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >>> >>>> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> >>>> >
> > >>> >>>> > > Infra requests created:
> > >>> >>>> > >
> > >>> >>>> > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
> > >>> >>>> > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
> > >>> >>>> > >
> > >>> >>>> > > -Val
> > >>> >>>> > >
> > >>> >>>> > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
> > >>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> >>>> > >
> > >>> >>>> > >> +1
> > >>> >>>> > >>
> > >>> >>>> > >> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are
> > >>> Ignite2 and
> > >>> >>>> > >> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be
> > logical
> > >>> and natural
> > >>> >>>> > >> course of things.
> > >>> >>>> > >>
> > >>> >>>> > >> > On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
> > >>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
> > >>> >>>> > >> wrote:
> > >>> >>>> > >> >
> > >>> >>>> > >> > +1
> > >>> >>>> > >> > This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some
> > >>> pending Ignite
> > >>> >>>> > >> 3
> > >>> >>>> > >> > specific documents, and it is not clear where to put them
> > at
> > >>> the moment.
> > >>> >>>> > >> >
> > >>> >>>> > >> > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >>> >>>> > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> >>>> > >> >
> > >>> >>>> > >> >> Igniters,
> > >>> >>>> > >> >>
> > >>> >>>> > >> >> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x
> > >>> will coexist
> > >>> >>>> > >> for a
> > >>> >>>> > >> >> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we
> > >>> still
> > >>> >>>> > >> accumulate
> > >>> >>>> > >> >> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project,
> > >>> which seems to
> > >>> >>>> > >> >> complicate the ticket management.
> > >>> >>>> > >> >>
> > >>> >>>> > >> >> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x
> tickets,
> > >>> but this
> > >>> >>>> > >> approach
> > >>> >>>> > >> >> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new
> > >>> ticket, it's
> > >>> >>>> > >> >> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
> > >>> >>>> > >> >>
> > >>> >>>> > >> >> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single
> > >>> Confluence
> > >>> >>>> > >> space.
> > >>> >>>> > >> >>
> > >>> >>>> > >> >> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new
> Confluence
> > >>> space for
> > >>> >>>> > >> Ignite
> > >>> >>>> > >> >> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
> > >>> >>>> > >> >>
> > >>> >>>> > >> >> Any thoughts or objections?
> > >>> >>>> > >> >>
> > >>> >>>> > >> >> -Val
> > >>> >>>> > >> >>
> > >>> >>>> > >> >
> > >>> >>>> > >> >
> > >>> >>>> > >> > --
> > >>> >>>> > >> > With regards,
> > >>> >>>> > >> > Aleksandr Polovtcev
> > >>> >>>> > >>
> > >>> >>>> > >>
> > >>> >>>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>.
Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my knowledge).
Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else is a
technicality.
Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't really see a
difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up with a name
that is more intuitive than a separate project :)
Let's see what others think.
-Val
On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
>
> Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
> special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two predefined values -
> "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it needs to be
> intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs me is that
> neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the recently released
> versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Denis,
> >
> > From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two separate
> > projects, because they are based on different codebases. The split you're
> > talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for Ignite 3.
> > This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as these two
> > shared the codebase.
> >
> > For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just transitioned to
> > 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or will require
> a
> > completely different fix, which will mean two different tickets.
> >
> > That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just different
> > versions of the same product, because, as you correctly mentioned, they
> > target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time, they are
> > developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's not confuse
> > these two aspects with each other - they are largely orthogonal.
> >
> > At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
> > fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and efficient
> > ticket management.
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a different
> >> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for high-performance
> >> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs - thus, a major
> >> version. Same users, community, use cases.
> >>
> >> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is how
> you're
> >> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work on Ignite
> 2 we
> >> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover, many
> tickets
> >> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only - which
> is a
> >> version change in our JIRA.
> >>
> >> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
> >>
> >> -
> >> Denis
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <mm...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Val,
> >>>
> >>> I don't see any issues having different projects under Ignite's brand
> >>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This is a bad
> >>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions and even
> >>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and release
> >>> processes.
> >>>
> >>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
> >>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero. However, both
> >>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
> >>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Ilya,
> >>> >
> >>> > What exactly is this different focus and different values? Why
> exactly
> >>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current features? And
> why is
> >>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2 and
> Ignite 3
> >>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I honestly
> >>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
> >>> >
> >>> > Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems counterproductive at this
> >>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's discuss them.
> >>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are all here?
> :)
> >>> >
> >>> > -Val
> >>> >
> >>> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> >>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hello!
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called "Ignite <some
> >>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and values
> which
> >>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Regards,
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> Ilya Kasnacheev
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhikov@apache.org
> >:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a new
> >>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
> >>> >>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name. All is
> >>> different
> >>> >>> - source code.
> >>> >>> - repository.
> >>> >>> - features.
> >>> >>> - API.
> >>> >>> - road map.
> >>> >>> - contributors.
> >>> >>> - contribution rules.
> >>> >>> - release cycle.
> >>> >>> *** you are here ***
> >>> >>> - jira
> >>> >>> - confluence
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as "Ignite3" is
> just
> >>> another project?
> >>> >>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and Ignite3 should
> >>> coexists?
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Sincerely,
> >>> >>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>> > Hi Dmitry,
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> > According to Infra, this has to be done through
> >>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
> >>> >>>> > but only PMC chairs have access.
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> > Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira project
> and
> >>> >>>> > Confluence space?
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> > -Val
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>> >>>> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>> >
> >>> >>>> > > Infra requests created:
> >>> >>>> > >
> >>> >>>> > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
> >>> >>>> > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
> >>> >>>> > >
> >>> >>>> > > -Val
> >>> >>>> > >
> >>> >>>> > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
> >>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>> > >
> >>> >>>> > >> +1
> >>> >>>> > >>
> >>> >>>> > >> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are
> >>> Ignite2 and
> >>> >>>> > >> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be
> logical
> >>> and natural
> >>> >>>> > >> course of things.
> >>> >>>> > >>
> >>> >>>> > >> > On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
> >>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
> >>> >>>> > >> wrote:
> >>> >>>> > >> >
> >>> >>>> > >> > +1
> >>> >>>> > >> > This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some
> >>> pending Ignite
> >>> >>>> > >> 3
> >>> >>>> > >> > specific documents, and it is not clear where to put them
> at
> >>> the moment.
> >>> >>>> > >> >
> >>> >>>> > >> > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>> >>>> > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>>> > >> >
> >>> >>>> > >> >> Igniters,
> >>> >>>> > >> >>
> >>> >>>> > >> >> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x
> >>> will coexist
> >>> >>>> > >> for a
> >>> >>>> > >> >> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we
> >>> still
> >>> >>>> > >> accumulate
> >>> >>>> > >> >> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project,
> >>> which seems to
> >>> >>>> > >> >> complicate the ticket management.
> >>> >>>> > >> >>
> >>> >>>> > >> >> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x tickets,
> >>> but this
> >>> >>>> > >> approach
> >>> >>>> > >> >> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new
> >>> ticket, it's
> >>> >>>> > >> >> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
> >>> >>>> > >> >>
> >>> >>>> > >> >> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single
> >>> Confluence
> >>> >>>> > >> space.
> >>> >>>> > >> >>
> >>> >>>> > >> >> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new Confluence
> >>> space for
> >>> >>>> > >> Ignite
> >>> >>>> > >> >> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
> >>> >>>> > >> >>
> >>> >>>> > >> >> Any thoughts or objections?
> >>> >>>> > >> >>
> >>> >>>> > >> >> -Val
> >>> >>>> > >> >>
> >>> >>>> > >> >
> >>> >>>> > >> >
> >>> >>>> > >> > --
> >>> >>>> > >> > With regards,
> >>> >>>> > >> > Aleksandr Polovtcev
> >>> >>>> > >>
> >>> >>>> > >>
> >>> >>>> >
> >>>
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Moving the discussion back to the dev list.
Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a
special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two predefined values -
"Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it needs to be
intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs me is that
neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the recently released
versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing.
-
Denis
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> Denis,
>
> From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two separate
> projects, because they are based on different codebases. The split you're
> talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for Ignite 3.
> This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as these two
> shared the codebase.
>
> For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just transitioned to
> 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or will require a
> completely different fix, which will mean two different tickets.
>
> That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just different
> versions of the same product, because, as you correctly mentioned, they
> target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time, they are
> developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's not confuse
> these two aspects with each other - they are largely orthogonal.
>
> At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything
> fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and efficient
> ticket management.
>
> -Val
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a different
>> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for high-performance
>> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs - thus, a major
>> version. Same users, community, use cases.
>>
>> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is how you're
>> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work on Ignite 2 we
>> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover, many tickets
>> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only - which is a
>> version change in our JIRA.
>>
>> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal.
>>
>> -
>> Denis
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <mm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Val,
>>>
>>> I don't see any issues having different projects under Ignite's brand
>>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This is a bad
>>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions and even
>>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and release
>>> processes.
>>>
>>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having
>>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero. However, both
>>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko
>>> <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Ilya,
>>> >
>>> > What exactly is this different focus and different values? Why exactly
>>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current features? And why is
>>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2 and Ignite 3
>>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I honestly
>>> can't understand what this fuss is all about.
>>> >
>>> > Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems counterproductive at this
>>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's discuss them.
>>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are all here? :)
>>> >
>>> > -Val
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
>>> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hello!
>>> >>
>>> >> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called "Ignite <some
>>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and values which
>>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features.
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >> --
>>> >> Ilya Kasnacheev
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov <ni...@apache.org>:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hello, Ignite PMC.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a new
>>> database engine built on completely new architecture.
>>> >>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name. All is
>>> different
>>> >>> - source code.
>>> >>> - repository.
>>> >>> - features.
>>> >>> - API.
>>> >>> - road map.
>>> >>> - contributors.
>>> >>> - contribution rules.
>>> >>> - release cycle.
>>> >>> *** you are here ***
>>> >>> - jira
>>> >>> - confluence
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as "Ignite3" is just
>>> another project?
>>> >>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and Ignite3 should
>>> coexists?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I hope it is not too urgent.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Sincerely,
>>> >>>> Dmitriy Pavlov
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> > Hi Dmitry,
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > According to Infra, this has to be done through
>>> http://selfserve.apache.org/,
>>> >>>> > but only PMC chairs have access.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira project and
>>> >>>> > Confluence space?
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > -Val
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>> >>>> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> > > Infra requests created:
>>> >>>> > >
>>> >>>> > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
>>> >>>> > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>>> >>>> > >
>>> >>>> > > -Val
>>> >>>> > >
>>> >>>> > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <
>>> mr.weider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> > >
>>> >>>> > >> +1
>>> >>>> > >>
>>> >>>> > >> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are
>>> Ignite2 and
>>> >>>> > >> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be logical
>>> and natural
>>> >>>> > >> course of things.
>>> >>>> > >>
>>> >>>> > >> > On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <
>>> alexpolovtcev@gmail.com>
>>> >>>> > >> wrote:
>>> >>>> > >> >
>>> >>>> > >> > +1
>>> >>>> > >> > This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some
>>> pending Ignite
>>> >>>> > >> 3
>>> >>>> > >> > specific documents, and it is not clear where to put them at
>>> the moment.
>>> >>>> > >> >
>>> >>>> > >> > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>> >>>> > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> > >> >
>>> >>>> > >> >> Igniters,
>>> >>>> > >> >>
>>> >>>> > >> >> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x
>>> will coexist
>>> >>>> > >> for a
>>> >>>> > >> >> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we
>>> still
>>> >>>> > >> accumulate
>>> >>>> > >> >> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project,
>>> which seems to
>>> >>>> > >> >> complicate the ticket management.
>>> >>>> > >> >>
>>> >>>> > >> >> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x tickets,
>>> but this
>>> >>>> > >> approach
>>> >>>> > >> >> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new
>>> ticket, it's
>>> >>>> > >> >> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>>> >>>> > >> >>
>>> >>>> > >> >> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single
>>> Confluence
>>> >>>> > >> space.
>>> >>>> > >> >>
>>> >>>> > >> >> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new Confluence
>>> space for
>>> >>>> > >> Ignite
>>> >>>> > >> >> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
>>> >>>> > >> >>
>>> >>>> > >> >> Any thoughts or objections?
>>> >>>> > >> >>
>>> >>>> > >> >> -Val
>>> >>>> > >> >>
>>> >>>> > >> >
>>> >>>> > >> >
>>> >>>> > >> > --
>>> >>>> > >> > With regards,
>>> >>>> > >> > Aleksandr Polovtcev
>>> >>>> > >>
>>> >>>> > >>
>>> >>>> >
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite 3
Posted by Dmitry Pavlov <dp...@apache.org>.
Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later.
I hope it is not too urgent.
Sincerely,
Dmitriy Pavlov
On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> According to Infra, this has to be done through http://selfserve.apache.org/,
> but only PMC chairs have access.
>
> Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira project and
> Confluence space?
>
> -Val
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Infra requests created:
> >
> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are Ignite2 and
> >> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be logical and natural
> >> course of things.
> >>
> >> > On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <al...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > +1
> >> > This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some pending Ignite
> >> 3
> >> > specific documents, and it is not clear where to put them at the moment.
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Igniters,
> >> >>
> >> >> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x will coexist
> >> for a
> >> >> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we still
> >> accumulate
> >> >> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project, which seems to
> >> >> complicate the ticket management.
> >> >>
> >> >> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x tickets, but this
> >> approach
> >> >> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new ticket, it's
> >> >> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
> >> >>
> >> >> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single Confluence
> >> space.
> >> >>
> >> >> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new Confluence space for
> >> Ignite
> >> >> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any thoughts or objections?
> >> >>
> >> >> -Val
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > With regards,
> >> > Aleksandr Polovtcev
> >>
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dmitry,
According to Infra, this has to be done through http://selfserve.apache.org/,
but only PMC chairs have access.
Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira project and
Confluence space?
-Val
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> Infra requests created:
>
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
>
> -Val
>
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are Ignite2 and
>> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be logical and natural
>> course of things.
>>
>> > On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <al...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +1
>> > This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some pending Ignite
>> 3
>> > specific documents, and it is not clear where to put them at the moment.
>> >
>> > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Igniters,
>> >>
>> >> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x will coexist
>> for a
>> >> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we still
>> accumulate
>> >> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project, which seems to
>> >> complicate the ticket management.
>> >>
>> >> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x tickets, but this
>> approach
>> >> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new ticket, it's
>> >> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>> >>
>> >> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single Confluence
>> space.
>> >>
>> >> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new Confluence space for
>> Ignite
>> >> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
>> >>
>> >> Any thoughts or objections?
>> >>
>> >> -Val
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > With regards,
>> > Aleksandr Polovtcev
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>.
Infra requests created:
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350
-Val
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are Ignite2 and
> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be logical and natural
> course of things.
>
> > On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <al...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> > This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some pending Ignite 3
> > specific documents, and it is not clear where to put them at the moment.
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Igniters,
> >>
> >> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x will coexist
> for a
> >> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we still accumulate
> >> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project, which seems to
> >> complicate the ticket management.
> >>
> >> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x tickets, but this
> approach
> >> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new ticket, it's
> >> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
> >>
> >> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single Confluence
> space.
> >>
> >> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new Confluence space for
> Ignite
> >> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts or objections?
> >>
> >> -Val
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > With regards,
> > Aleksandr Polovtcev
>
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Petr Ivanov <mr...@gmail.com>.
+1
Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are Ignite2 and Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be logical and natural course of things.
> On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
> This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some pending Ignite 3
> specific documents, and it is not clear where to put them at the moment.
>
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Igniters,
>>
>> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x will coexist for a
>> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we still accumulate
>> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project, which seems to
>> complicate the ticket management.
>>
>> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x tickets, but this approach
>> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new ticket, it's
>> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>>
>> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single Confluence space.
>>
>> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new Confluence space for Ignite
>> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
>>
>> Any thoughts or objections?
>>
>> -Val
>>
>
>
> --
> With regards,
> Aleksandr Polovtcev
Re: [DISCUSSION] Separate Jira project and Confluence space for
Ignite 3
Posted by Alexander Polovtcev <al...@gmail.com>.
+1
This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some pending Ignite 3
specific documents, and it is not clear where to put them at the moment.
On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> Igniters,
>
> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x will coexist for a
> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we still accumulate
> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project, which seems to
> complicate the ticket management.
>
> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x tickets, but this approach
> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new ticket, it's
> likely to be lost. We need a better separation.
>
> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single Confluence space.
>
> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new Confluence space for Ignite
> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there.
>
> Any thoughts or objections?
>
> -Val
>
--
With regards,
Aleksandr Polovtcev