Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>]

Folks,

The repository with the donation is ready and available for review:
https://github.com/agoncharuk/ignite/tree/pds-donate

Big and main part of the sources is aggregated in “modules/pds”. The rest, that connects Apache Ignite memory architecture and SQL engine is under “core” and “indexing” modules. Alex Goncharuk should be able to point to specific files or commits if required.

Here is a description:
* Persistent Store Overview: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Overview
* Persistent Store Internal Design: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Internal+Design

The SGA will be signed and sent on Monday.

In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to the template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html

*Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or committing the form from under your account?

—
Denis

> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@boudnik.org> wrote:
> 
> While no one is suggesting an IP trap laid out in the non-SGA'ed code
> in this particular case, we don't want to setup a precedent like this.
> 
> From the overall ASF perspective I +1 what Roman has just said.
> 
> Thanks,
> --
>  Take care,
> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:54PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Would a standard SGA suffice here?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I believe that ASF guidelines suggest that a discussion should happen
>>>>> first. Once the community gets enough information, we will move to a PMC
>>>>> vote. I was under the impression that once the PMC vote passes, then the
>>>>> SGA should be provided. Or does GridGain need to provide a signed SGA
>>>> right
>>>>> away?
>>>> 
>>>> That reminds me of that Pelosi's self-inflicted conundrum of "In order
>>>> to see the bill, we should pass the bill" ;)
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Haha :)
>>> 
>>> SGA != code. In my view, the code should be provided to the community for a
>>> review. But I am struggling to see why should an SGA be signed prior to the
>>> community accepting the donation.
>> 
>> There's no such thing as SGA without a reference to a code base.
>> 
>> Also, as I explained -- as a community member I would refuse to look
>> at the code base that doesn't have a proper licensing attached to it.
>> SGA established this kind of proper licensing.
>> 
>> Now, SGA is deinetly not the only way to do so, but it is the easiest
>> and since you'd have to do it anyway the most convenient for the
>> community.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>]

Cos, Roman,

Your concerns sound reasonable to me. However, that’s my personal point of view and not of the overall community. Personally, I accustomed to lean on the notion of releases and deadlines. Not sure that it contradicts ASF principles or can’t be applied to Apache projects. In any case it’s up to the community to decide how to proceed. I’m just trying to form a sort of process ;)

In general, I would avoid all the arguments and look at the storage collaboratively and constructively. I didn’t consider to rush you. Just forwarded you the message so that you can spot it among many falling in your inbox. Take whatever time you need.

In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to the template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html <http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html>

Could any of you grant me karma or commit the changes from your accounts?

> We also have this documented contribution process [1]. Is there a good
> reason to circumvent it in this particular case?
> 
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-1.CreateGitHubpull-request <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-1.CreateGitHubpull-request>
Cos, the IP Clearance/grant process was followed and the following artifacts were prepared as a part of it (if you prefer the pull-request then it should be possible to do it):

The repository with the donation is ready and available for review:
https://github.com/agoncharuk/ignite/tree/pds-donate <https://github.com/agoncharuk/ignite/tree/pds-donate>

Big and main part of the sources is aggregated in “modules/pds”. The rest, that connects Apache Ignite memory architecture and SQL engine is under “core” and “indexing” modules. Alex Goncharuk should be able to point to specific files or commits if required.

Here is a description:
* Persistent Store Overview: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Overview <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Overview>
* Persistent Store Internal Design: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Internal+Design <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Internal+Design>

—
Denis

> On May 17, 2017, at 8:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is a
>> huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite familiar
>> with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for
>> one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated
>> with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go"
>> criteria.
> 
> Cos is absolutely correct here. Strong +1 to the above.
> 
>> I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's
>> graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise,
>> feel like a community process of creating software should be thought
>> through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates" or
>> "feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board
>> with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority of
>> the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache.
>> Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling
>> products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases
>> are important here, they convey a very different meaning.
> 
> Which brings me to a related question: what exactly needs to be released
> on this aggressive schedule and who is a beneficiary of this release?
> 
> What I am trying to say is this: if GirdGain has a product delivery
> deadline -- the
> company can go ahead and release its product with whatever features it needs to.
> 
> But I'm with Cos -- the community has to be given time to get comfortable with
> the code base if for nothing else but for licensing implications.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roman.

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>]

>   4) I believe the VOTE to accept the donation should be *decoupled* from
> any VOTEs –or decisions– on *what* to do with the donation and *when* to do
> it. Although it's sane and healthy to discuss the future of the donation
> inside its new home, ultimately there should be no time pressure by the
> donor with regards to the ultimate destination of their donation.

Followed Raul’s suggestion and initiated the VOTE as a part of different discussion:
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Accept-Contribution-of-Ignite-Persistent-Store-td17896.html

Take your time to review the donation and vote once you’re ready.

—
Denis

> On May 19, 2017, at 4:08 AM, Raúl Kripalani <ra...@evosent.com> wrote:
> 
> Nice! Sorry for being out of touch lately. I'm glad to see GridGain donate
> additional components to the Ignite ecosystem.
> 
> IIUC:
> 
>   1) GG implemented PDS for a commercial customer, but it is now being
> donated to the community => I assume GG has obtained clearance from that
> customer first.
> 
>   2) It appears that PDS is a module of Ignite, but changes are required
> to the core in the existing codebase for the integration to work => Correct?
> 
>   3) We use SemVer [1], and there have been talks about potentially
> merging this into 2.1, rather than 3.x. => Is it safe to assume that
> integrating the PDS will not lead to any *breaking changes* in APIs?
> 
>   4) I believe the VOTE to accept the donation should be *decoupled* from
> any VOTEs –or decisions– on *what* to do with the donation and *when* to do
> it. Although it's sane and healthy to discuss the future of the donation
> inside its new home, ultimately there should be no time pressure by the
> donor with regards to the ultimate destination of their donation.
> 
>   5) Normally the code belonging to the donation is first put in
> "quarantine" inside the codebase, i.e. a separate repo or a separate
> branch, where the community can review, test, peruse, integrate, etc. In
> this sense, I agree with Dmitriy. The natural fit seems to be a branch in
> this case.
> 
> If we just focus on whether to accept the donation and place the code into
> a separate branch –without pressure to release for 2.1, just a vision to do
> so– would there be consensus?
> 
> [1] http://semver.org/
> 
> Cheers,
> Raúl.
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> Cos, Roman,
>> 
>> This has nothing to do with any deadlines, but rather with an easier and
>> more efficient process.
>> 
>> I am not sure how keeping the code in a separate code base is better for
>> the community than keeping it in a separate Apache Ignite branch, where we
>> can integrate it into Ignite CI process, run tests, stabilize, all while
>> the community is getting familiar with it. Keeping the code base outside of
>> Apache Ignite GIT makes it much more difficult to integrate or stabilize.
>> Moreover, if the code is in a separate Ignite branch, we can get the
>> community help to work on it and discuss issues on the dev list.
>> 
>> I would propose to move the code to a separate branch in Apache Ignite
>> right now, especially given that the paperwork has already been taken care
>> of. We can still decide within the Ignite community not to accept it down
>> the road, in which case we can toss away the branch.
>> 
>> Would you agree with this approach?
>> 
>> D.
>> 
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is a
>>>> huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite familiar
>>>> with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for
>>>> one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated
>>>> with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go"
>>>> criteria.
>>> 
>>> Cos is absolutely correct here. Strong +1 to the above.
>>> 
>>>> I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's
>>>> graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise,
>>>> feel like a community process of creating software should be thought
>>>> through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates" or
>>>> "feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board
>>>> with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority of
>>>> the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache.
>>>> Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling
>>>> products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases
>>>> are important here, they convey a very different meaning.
>>> 
>>> Which brings me to a related question: what exactly needs to be released
>>> on this aggressive schedule and who is a beneficiary of this release?
>>> 
>>> What I am trying to say is this: if GirdGain has a product delivery
>>> deadline -- the
>>> company can go ahead and release its product with whatever features it
>>> needs to.
>>> 
>>> But I'm with Cos -- the community has to be given time to get comfortable
>>> with
>>> the code base if for nothing else but for licensing implications.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Roman.
>>> 
>> 

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>]

Hi Raul, thanks for jumping in! I agree on all points.

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:08 AM, Raúl Kripalani <ra...@evosent.com>
wrote:

> Nice! Sorry for being out of touch lately. I'm glad to see GridGain donate
> additional components to the Ignite ecosystem.
>
> IIUC:
>
>    1) GG implemented PDS for a commercial customer, but it is now being
> donated to the community => I assume GG has obtained clearance from that
> customer first.
>
>    2) It appears that PDS is a module of Ignite, but changes are required
> to the core in the existing codebase for the integration to work =>
> Correct?
>
>    3) We use SemVer [1], and there have been talks about potentially
> merging this into 2.1, rather than 3.x. => Is it safe to assume that
> integrating the PDS will not lead to any *breaking changes* in APIs?
>
>    4) I believe the VOTE to accept the donation should be *decoupled* from
> any VOTEs –or decisions– on *what* to do with the donation and *when* to do
> it. Although it's sane and healthy to discuss the future of the donation
> inside its new home, ultimately there should be no time pressure by the
> donor with regards to the ultimate destination of their donation.
>
>    5) Normally the code belonging to the donation is first put in
> "quarantine" inside the codebase, i.e. a separate repo or a separate
> branch, where the community can review, test, peruse, integrate, etc. In
> this sense, I agree with Dmitriy. The natural fit seems to be a branch in
> this case.
>
> If we just focus on whether to accept the donation and place the code into
> a separate branch –without pressure to release for 2.1, just a vision to do
> so– would there be consensus?
>
> [1] http://semver.org/
>
> Cheers,
> Raúl.
>
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Cos, Roman,
> >
> > This has nothing to do with any deadlines, but rather with an easier and
> > more efficient process.
> >
> > I am not sure how keeping the code in a separate code base is better for
> > the community than keeping it in a separate Apache Ignite branch, where
> we
> > can integrate it into Ignite CI process, run tests, stabilize, all while
> > the community is getting familiar with it. Keeping the code base outside
> of
> > Apache Ignite GIT makes it much more difficult to integrate or stabilize.
> > Moreover, if the code is in a separate Ignite branch, we can get the
> > community help to work on it and discuss issues on the dev list.
> >
> > I would propose to move the code to a separate branch in Apache Ignite
> > right now, especially given that the paperwork has already been taken
> care
> > of. We can still decide within the Ignite community not to accept it down
> > the road, in which case we can toss away the branch.
> >
> > Would you agree with this approach?
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is
> a
> > > > huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite
> familiar
> > > > with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for
> > > > one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated
> > > > with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go"
> > > > criteria.
> > >
> > > Cos is absolutely correct here. Strong +1 to the above.
> > >
> > > > I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's
> > > > graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise,
> > > > feel like a community process of creating software should be thought
> > > > through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates"
> or
> > > > "feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board
> > > > with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority
> of
> > > > the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache.
> > > > Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling
> > > > products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases
> > > > are important here, they convey a very different meaning.
> > >
> > > Which brings me to a related question: what exactly needs to be
> released
> > > on this aggressive schedule and who is a beneficiary of this release?
> > >
> > > What I am trying to say is this: if GirdGain has a product delivery
> > > deadline -- the
> > > company can go ahead and release its product with whatever features it
> > > needs to.
> > >
> > > But I'm with Cos -- the community has to be given time to get
> comfortable
> > > with
> > > the code base if for nothing else but for licensing implications.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roman.
> > >
> >
>

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>]

All great points, thank you Raúl!

+1
--
  Take care,
Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.


On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:08 AM, Raúl Kripalani <ra...@evosent.com> wrote:
> Nice! Sorry for being out of touch lately. I'm glad to see GridGain donate
> additional components to the Ignite ecosystem.
>
> IIUC:
>
>    1) GG implemented PDS for a commercial customer, but it is now being
> donated to the community => I assume GG has obtained clearance from that
> customer first.
>
>    2) It appears that PDS is a module of Ignite, but changes are required
> to the core in the existing codebase for the integration to work => Correct?
>
>    3) We use SemVer [1], and there have been talks about potentially
> merging this into 2.1, rather than 3.x. => Is it safe to assume that
> integrating the PDS will not lead to any *breaking changes* in APIs?
>
>    4) I believe the VOTE to accept the donation should be *decoupled* from
> any VOTEs –or decisions– on *what* to do with the donation and *when* to do
> it. Although it's sane and healthy to discuss the future of the donation
> inside its new home, ultimately there should be no time pressure by the
> donor with regards to the ultimate destination of their donation.
>
>    5) Normally the code belonging to the donation is first put in
> "quarantine" inside the codebase, i.e. a separate repo or a separate
> branch, where the community can review, test, peruse, integrate, etc. In
> this sense, I agree with Dmitriy. The natural fit seems to be a branch in
> this case.
>
> If we just focus on whether to accept the donation and place the code into
> a separate branch –without pressure to release for 2.1, just a vision to do
> so– would there be consensus?
>
> [1] http://semver.org/
>
> Cheers,
> Raúl.
>
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Cos, Roman,
>>
>> This has nothing to do with any deadlines, but rather with an easier and
>> more efficient process.
>>
>> I am not sure how keeping the code in a separate code base is better for
>> the community than keeping it in a separate Apache Ignite branch, where we
>> can integrate it into Ignite CI process, run tests, stabilize, all while
>> the community is getting familiar with it. Keeping the code base outside of
>> Apache Ignite GIT makes it much more difficult to integrate or stabilize.
>> Moreover, if the code is in a separate Ignite branch, we can get the
>> community help to work on it and discuss issues on the dev list.
>>
>> I would propose to move the code to a separate branch in Apache Ignite
>> right now, especially given that the paperwork has already been taken care
>> of. We can still decide within the Ignite community not to accept it down
>> the road, in which case we can toss away the branch.
>>
>> Would you agree with this approach?
>>
>> D.
>>
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is a
>> > > huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite familiar
>> > > with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for
>> > > one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated
>> > > with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go"
>> > > criteria.
>> >
>> > Cos is absolutely correct here. Strong +1 to the above.
>> >
>> > > I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's
>> > > graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise,
>> > > feel like a community process of creating software should be thought
>> > > through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates" or
>> > > "feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board
>> > > with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority of
>> > > the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache.
>> > > Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling
>> > > products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases
>> > > are important here, they convey a very different meaning.
>> >
>> > Which brings me to a related question: what exactly needs to be released
>> > on this aggressive schedule and who is a beneficiary of this release?
>> >
>> > What I am trying to say is this: if GirdGain has a product delivery
>> > deadline -- the
>> > company can go ahead and release its product with whatever features it
>> > needs to.
>> >
>> > But I'm with Cos -- the community has to be given time to get comfortable
>> > with
>> > the code base if for nothing else but for licensing implications.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Roman.
>> >
>>

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Raúl Kripalani <ra...@evosent.com>]

Nice! Sorry for being out of touch lately. I'm glad to see GridGain donate
additional components to the Ignite ecosystem.

IIUC:

   1) GG implemented PDS for a commercial customer, but it is now being
donated to the community => I assume GG has obtained clearance from that
customer first.

   2) It appears that PDS is a module of Ignite, but changes are required
to the core in the existing codebase for the integration to work => Correct?

   3) We use SemVer [1], and there have been talks about potentially
merging this into 2.1, rather than 3.x. => Is it safe to assume that
integrating the PDS will not lead to any *breaking changes* in APIs?

   4) I believe the VOTE to accept the donation should be *decoupled* from
any VOTEs –or decisions– on *what* to do with the donation and *when* to do
it. Although it's sane and healthy to discuss the future of the donation
inside its new home, ultimately there should be no time pressure by the
donor with regards to the ultimate destination of their donation.

   5) Normally the code belonging to the donation is first put in
"quarantine" inside the codebase, i.e. a separate repo or a separate
branch, where the community can review, test, peruse, integrate, etc. In
this sense, I agree with Dmitriy. The natural fit seems to be a branch in
this case.

If we just focus on whether to accept the donation and place the code into
a separate branch –without pressure to release for 2.1, just a vision to do
so– would there be consensus?

[1] http://semver.org/

Cheers,
Raúl.


On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
wrote:

> Cos, Roman,
>
> This has nothing to do with any deadlines, but rather with an easier and
> more efficient process.
>
> I am not sure how keeping the code in a separate code base is better for
> the community than keeping it in a separate Apache Ignite branch, where we
> can integrate it into Ignite CI process, run tests, stabilize, all while
> the community is getting familiar with it. Keeping the code base outside of
> Apache Ignite GIT makes it much more difficult to integrate or stabilize.
> Moreover, if the code is in a separate Ignite branch, we can get the
> community help to work on it and discuss issues on the dev list.
>
> I would propose to move the code to a separate branch in Apache Ignite
> right now, especially given that the paperwork has already been taken care
> of. We can still decide within the Ignite community not to accept it down
> the road, in which case we can toss away the branch.
>
> Would you agree with this approach?
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is a
> > > huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite familiar
> > > with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for
> > > one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated
> > > with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go"
> > > criteria.
> >
> > Cos is absolutely correct here. Strong +1 to the above.
> >
> > > I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's
> > > graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise,
> > > feel like a community process of creating software should be thought
> > > through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates" or
> > > "feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board
> > > with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority of
> > > the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache.
> > > Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling
> > > products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases
> > > are important here, they convey a very different meaning.
> >
> > Which brings me to a related question: what exactly needs to be released
> > on this aggressive schedule and who is a beneficiary of this release?
> >
> > What I am trying to say is this: if GirdGain has a product delivery
> > deadline -- the
> > company can go ahead and release its product with whatever features it
> > needs to.
> >
> > But I'm with Cos -- the community has to be given time to get comfortable
> > with
> > the code base if for nothing else but for licensing implications.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
>

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Denis Magda <dm...@gridgain.com>]

Roman, yes the software grant was acknowledged by Craig Russel. I mentioned
this earlier in the discussion.

On Friday, May 19, 2017, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> <dsetrakyan@apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > Hm... I think I misunderstood the issue.
> >
> > In this case, since there is no disagreement, I would propose the
> following
> > steps then:
> >
> >    1. We should merge the code into a separate Ignite branch and start
> >    stabilizing it.
>
> Wait! Before that happens -- has there SGA been filed already? I apologize
> if it has and I missed it.
>
> Just trying to make sure we only land code on ASF infrastructure once
> proper
> legal paperwork has been received by the secretary@
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>]

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hm... I think I misunderstood the issue.
>
> In this case, since there is no disagreement, I would propose the following
> steps then:
>
>    1. We should merge the code into a separate Ignite branch and start
>    stabilizing it.

Wait! Before that happens -- has there SGA been filed already? I apologize
if it has and I missed it.

Just trying to make sure we only land code on ASF infrastructure once proper
legal paperwork has been received by the secretary@

Thanks,
Roman.

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>]

Guys,

As discussed, pushed the branch being stabilized to ignite-5267 (and
created the corresponding ticket).

2017-05-21 6:48 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:

> Sounds good to me.
>
> To keep all of you in the loop, eventually, the *IP clearance vote* has
> been initiated on @incubator-general. Here is the form:
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/persistent-
> distributed-store-ignite.html <http://incubator.apache.org/
> ip-clearance/persistent-distributed-store-ignite.html>
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On May 19, 2017, at 5:08 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hm... I think I misunderstood the issue.
> >
> > In this case, since there is no disagreement, I would propose the
> following
> > steps then:
> >
> >   1. We should merge the code into a separate Ignite branch and start
> >   stabilizing it.
> >   2. Let's start the VOTE to accept the donation once the code is merged.
> >   As Raul suggested, let's keep the VOTE to accept the donation separate
> from
> >   any decision on what to do with the donation or when to release it.
> >   3. I am hoping that once the donation is accepted, all the discussions
> >   about the new code, moving it to Ignite standards, stabilizing it, and
> >   eventually releasing it should happen on the dev list, which should
> allow
> >   everyone in the community to familiarize themselves with it.
> >
> > Does this sound like an agreeable process to move forward?
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@boudnik.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dmitriy,
> >>
> >> no one has ever suggested to keep the code in a separate repository
> >> (once the grant issues were sorted out). Not sure where you get this
> >> impression. I don't think there's anything to argue about ;)
> >>
> >> Cos
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>  Take care,
> >> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> >> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> Cos, Roman,
> >>>
> >>> This has nothing to do with any deadlines, but rather with an easier
> and
> >>> more efficient process.
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure how keeping the code in a separate code base is better
> for
> >>> the community than keeping it in a separate Apache Ignite branch, where
> >> we
> >>> can integrate it into Ignite CI process, run tests, stabilize, all
> while
> >>> the community is getting familiar with it. Keeping the code base
> outside
> >> of
> >>> Apache Ignite GIT makes it much more difficult to integrate or
> stabilize.
> >>> Moreover, if the code is in a separate Ignite branch, we can get the
> >>> community help to work on it and discuss issues on the dev list.
> >>>
> >>> I would propose to move the code to a separate branch in Apache Ignite
> >>> right now, especially given that the paperwork has already been taken
> >> care
> >>> of. We can still decide within the Ignite community not to accept it
> down
> >>> the road, in which case we can toss away the branch.
> >>>
> >>> Would you agree with this approach?
> >>>
> >>> D.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is
> a
> >>>>> huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite
> familiar
> >>>>> with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for
> >>>>> one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated
> >>>>> with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go"
> >>>>> criteria.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cos is absolutely correct here. Strong +1 to the above.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's
> >>>>> graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise,
> >>>>> feel like a community process of creating software should be thought
> >>>>> through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates"
> or
> >>>>> "feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board
> >>>>> with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority
> of
> >>>>> the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache.
> >>>>> Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling
> >>>>> products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases
> >>>>> are important here, they convey a very different meaning.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which brings me to a related question: what exactly needs to be
> released
> >>>> on this aggressive schedule and who is a beneficiary of this release?
> >>>>
> >>>> What I am trying to say is this: if GirdGain has a product delivery
> >>>> deadline -- the
> >>>> company can go ahead and release its product with whatever features it
> >>>> needs to.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I'm with Cos -- the community has to be given time to get
> >> comfortable
> >>>> with
> >>>> the code base if for nothing else but for licensing implications.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Roman.
> >>>>
> >>
>
>

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>]

Sounds good to me.

To keep all of you in the loop, eventually, the *IP clearance vote* has been initiated on @incubator-general. Here is the form:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/persistent-distributed-store-ignite.html <http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/persistent-distributed-store-ignite.html>

—
Denis

> On May 19, 2017, at 5:08 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Hm... I think I misunderstood the issue.
> 
> In this case, since there is no disagreement, I would propose the following
> steps then:
> 
>   1. We should merge the code into a separate Ignite branch and start
>   stabilizing it.
>   2. Let's start the VOTE to accept the donation once the code is merged.
>   As Raul suggested, let's keep the VOTE to accept the donation separate from
>   any decision on what to do with the donation or when to release it.
>   3. I am hoping that once the donation is accepted, all the discussions
>   about the new code, moving it to Ignite standards, stabilizing it, and
>   eventually releasing it should happen on the dev list, which should allow
>   everyone in the community to familiarize themselves with it.
> 
> Does this sound like an agreeable process to move forward?
> 
> D.
> 
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@boudnik.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> Dmitriy,
>> 
>> no one has ever suggested to keep the code in a separate repository
>> (once the grant issues were sorted out). Not sure where you get this
>> impression. I don't think there's anything to argue about ;)
>> 
>> Cos
>> 
>> 
>> --
>>  Take care,
>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Cos, Roman,
>>> 
>>> This has nothing to do with any deadlines, but rather with an easier and
>>> more efficient process.
>>> 
>>> I am not sure how keeping the code in a separate code base is better for
>>> the community than keeping it in a separate Apache Ignite branch, where
>> we
>>> can integrate it into Ignite CI process, run tests, stabilize, all while
>>> the community is getting familiar with it. Keeping the code base outside
>> of
>>> Apache Ignite GIT makes it much more difficult to integrate or stabilize.
>>> Moreover, if the code is in a separate Ignite branch, we can get the
>>> community help to work on it and discuss issues on the dev list.
>>> 
>>> I would propose to move the code to a separate branch in Apache Ignite
>>> right now, especially given that the paperwork has already been taken
>> care
>>> of. We can still decide within the Ignite community not to accept it down
>>> the road, in which case we can toss away the branch.
>>> 
>>> Would you agree with this approach?
>>> 
>>> D.
>>> 
>>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is a
>>>>> huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite familiar
>>>>> with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for
>>>>> one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated
>>>>> with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go"
>>>>> criteria.
>>>> 
>>>> Cos is absolutely correct here. Strong +1 to the above.
>>>> 
>>>>> I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's
>>>>> graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise,
>>>>> feel like a community process of creating software should be thought
>>>>> through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates" or
>>>>> "feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board
>>>>> with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority of
>>>>> the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache.
>>>>> Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling
>>>>> products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases
>>>>> are important here, they convey a very different meaning.
>>>> 
>>>> Which brings me to a related question: what exactly needs to be released
>>>> on this aggressive schedule and who is a beneficiary of this release?
>>>> 
>>>> What I am trying to say is this: if GirdGain has a product delivery
>>>> deadline -- the
>>>> company can go ahead and release its product with whatever features it
>>>> needs to.
>>>> 
>>>> But I'm with Cos -- the community has to be given time to get
>> comfortable
>>>> with
>>>> the code base if for nothing else but for licensing implications.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Roman.
>>>> 
>> 

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>]

Hm... I think I misunderstood the issue.

In this case, since there is no disagreement, I would propose the following
steps then:

   1. We should merge the code into a separate Ignite branch and start
   stabilizing it.
   2. Let's start the VOTE to accept the donation once the code is merged.
   As Raul suggested, let's keep the VOTE to accept the donation separate from
   any decision on what to do with the donation or when to release it.
   3. I am hoping that once the donation is accepted, all the discussions
   about the new code, moving it to Ignite standards, stabilizing it, and
   eventually releasing it should happen on the dev list, which should allow
   everyone in the community to familiarize themselves with it.

Does this sound like an agreeable process to move forward?

D.

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@boudnik.org>
wrote:

> Dmitriy,
>
> no one has ever suggested to keep the code in a separate repository
> (once the grant issues were sorted out). Not sure where you get this
> impression. I don't think there's anything to argue about ;)
>
> Cos
>
>
> --
>   Take care,
> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
>
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Cos, Roman,
> >
> > This has nothing to do with any deadlines, but rather with an easier and
> > more efficient process.
> >
> > I am not sure how keeping the code in a separate code base is better for
> > the community than keeping it in a separate Apache Ignite branch, where
> we
> > can integrate it into Ignite CI process, run tests, stabilize, all while
> > the community is getting familiar with it. Keeping the code base outside
> of
> > Apache Ignite GIT makes it much more difficult to integrate or stabilize.
> > Moreover, if the code is in a separate Ignite branch, we can get the
> > community help to work on it and discuss issues on the dev list.
> >
> > I would propose to move the code to a separate branch in Apache Ignite
> > right now, especially given that the paperwork has already been taken
> care
> > of. We can still decide within the Ignite community not to accept it down
> > the road, in which case we can toss away the branch.
> >
> > Would you agree with this approach?
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is a
> >> > huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite familiar
> >> > with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for
> >> > one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated
> >> > with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go"
> >> > criteria.
> >>
> >> Cos is absolutely correct here. Strong +1 to the above.
> >>
> >> > I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's
> >> > graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise,
> >> > feel like a community process of creating software should be thought
> >> > through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates" or
> >> > "feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board
> >> > with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority of
> >> > the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache.
> >> > Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling
> >> > products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases
> >> > are important here, they convey a very different meaning.
> >>
> >> Which brings me to a related question: what exactly needs to be released
> >> on this aggressive schedule and who is a beneficiary of this release?
> >>
> >> What I am trying to say is this: if GirdGain has a product delivery
> >> deadline -- the
> >> company can go ahead and release its product with whatever features it
> >> needs to.
> >>
> >> But I'm with Cos -- the community has to be given time to get
> comfortable
> >> with
> >> the code base if for nothing else but for licensing implications.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Roman.
> >>
>

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@boudnik.org>]

Dmitriy,

no one has ever suggested to keep the code in a separate repository
(once the grant issues were sorted out). Not sure where you get this
impression. I don't think there's anything to argue about ;)

Cos


--
  Take care,
Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik


On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> Cos, Roman,
>
> This has nothing to do with any deadlines, but rather with an easier and
> more efficient process.
>
> I am not sure how keeping the code in a separate code base is better for
> the community than keeping it in a separate Apache Ignite branch, where we
> can integrate it into Ignite CI process, run tests, stabilize, all while
> the community is getting familiar with it. Keeping the code base outside of
> Apache Ignite GIT makes it much more difficult to integrate or stabilize.
> Moreover, if the code is in a separate Ignite branch, we can get the
> community help to work on it and discuss issues on the dev list.
>
> I would propose to move the code to a separate branch in Apache Ignite
> right now, especially given that the paperwork has already been taken care
> of. We can still decide within the Ignite community not to accept it down
> the road, in which case we can toss away the branch.
>
> Would you agree with this approach?
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is a
>> > huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite familiar
>> > with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for
>> > one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated
>> > with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go"
>> > criteria.
>>
>> Cos is absolutely correct here. Strong +1 to the above.
>>
>> > I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's
>> > graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise,
>> > feel like a community process of creating software should be thought
>> > through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates" or
>> > "feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board
>> > with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority of
>> > the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache.
>> > Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling
>> > products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases
>> > are important here, they convey a very different meaning.
>>
>> Which brings me to a related question: what exactly needs to be released
>> on this aggressive schedule and who is a beneficiary of this release?
>>
>> What I am trying to say is this: if GirdGain has a product delivery
>> deadline -- the
>> company can go ahead and release its product with whatever features it
>> needs to.
>>
>> But I'm with Cos -- the community has to be given time to get comfortable
>> with
>> the code base if for nothing else but for licensing implications.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>]

Cos,

The folks just followed Roman’s suggestion:

------------
So here's a set of steps you need to do:
   1. make code available some place on GitHub
   2. file and SGA with ASF pointing at a tag in that repo
   3. once both of these are done -- restart the discussion thread
————————

Basically, if to take a look at the list of donations on this page [1] it’s up to a community to decide where to “incubate” a donation - on a private GitHub repo or in an ASF branch.

[1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html <http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html>

—
Denis

> On May 19, 2017, at 2:55 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Dmitriy,
> 
> no one has ever suggested to keep the code in a separate repository
> (once the grant issues were sorted out). Not sure where you get this
> impression. I don't think there's anything to argue about ;)
> --
>  Take care,
> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
> 
> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Cos, Roman,
>> 
>> This has nothing to do with any deadlines, but rather with an easier and
>> more efficient process.
>> 
>> I am not sure how keeping the code in a separate code base is better for
>> the community than keeping it in a separate Apache Ignite branch, where we
>> can integrate it into Ignite CI process, run tests, stabilize, all while
>> the community is getting familiar with it. Keeping the code base outside of
>> Apache Ignite GIT makes it much more difficult to integrate or stabilize.
>> Moreover, if the code is in a separate Ignite branch, we can get the
>> community help to work on it and discuss issues on the dev list.
>> 
>> I would propose to move the code to a separate branch in Apache Ignite
>> right now, especially given that the paperwork has already been taken care
>> of. We can still decide within the Ignite community not to accept it down
>> the road, in which case we can toss away the branch.
>> 
>> Would you agree with this approach?
>> 
>> D.
>> 
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is a
>>>> huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite familiar
>>>> with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for
>>>> one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated
>>>> with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go"
>>>> criteria.
>>> 
>>> Cos is absolutely correct here. Strong +1 to the above.
>>> 
>>>> I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's
>>>> graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise,
>>>> feel like a community process of creating software should be thought
>>>> through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates" or
>>>> "feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board
>>>> with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority of
>>>> the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache.
>>>> Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling
>>>> products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases
>>>> are important here, they convey a very different meaning.
>>> 
>>> Which brings me to a related question: what exactly needs to be released
>>> on this aggressive schedule and who is a beneficiary of this release?
>>> 
>>> What I am trying to say is this: if GirdGain has a product delivery
>>> deadline -- the
>>> company can go ahead and release its product with whatever features it
>>> needs to.
>>> 
>>> But I'm with Cos -- the community has to be given time to get comfortable
>>> with
>>> the code base if for nothing else but for licensing implications.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Roman.
>>> 

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>]

Dmitriy,

no one has ever suggested to keep the code in a separate repository
(once the grant issues were sorted out). Not sure where you get this
impression. I don't think there's anything to argue about ;)
--
  Take care,
Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.


On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> Cos, Roman,
>
> This has nothing to do with any deadlines, but rather with an easier and
> more efficient process.
>
> I am not sure how keeping the code in a separate code base is better for
> the community than keeping it in a separate Apache Ignite branch, where we
> can integrate it into Ignite CI process, run tests, stabilize, all while
> the community is getting familiar with it. Keeping the code base outside of
> Apache Ignite GIT makes it much more difficult to integrate or stabilize.
> Moreover, if the code is in a separate Ignite branch, we can get the
> community help to work on it and discuss issues on the dev list.
>
> I would propose to move the code to a separate branch in Apache Ignite
> right now, especially given that the paperwork has already been taken care
> of. We can still decide within the Ignite community not to accept it down
> the road, in which case we can toss away the branch.
>
> Would you agree with this approach?
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is a
>> > huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite familiar
>> > with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for
>> > one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated
>> > with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go"
>> > criteria.
>>
>> Cos is absolutely correct here. Strong +1 to the above.
>>
>> > I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's
>> > graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise,
>> > feel like a community process of creating software should be thought
>> > through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates" or
>> > "feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board
>> > with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority of
>> > the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache.
>> > Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling
>> > products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases
>> > are important here, they convey a very different meaning.
>>
>> Which brings me to a related question: what exactly needs to be released
>> on this aggressive schedule and who is a beneficiary of this release?
>>
>> What I am trying to say is this: if GirdGain has a product delivery
>> deadline -- the
>> company can go ahead and release its product with whatever features it
>> needs to.
>>
>> But I'm with Cos -- the community has to be given time to get comfortable
>> with
>> the code base if for nothing else but for licensing implications.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>]

Cos, Roman,

This has nothing to do with any deadlines, but rather with an easier and
more efficient process.

I am not sure how keeping the code in a separate code base is better for
the community than keeping it in a separate Apache Ignite branch, where we
can integrate it into Ignite CI process, run tests, stabilize, all while
the community is getting familiar with it. Keeping the code base outside of
Apache Ignite GIT makes it much more difficult to integrate or stabilize.
Moreover, if the code is in a separate Ignite branch, we can get the
community help to work on it and discuss issues on the dev list.

I would propose to move the code to a separate branch in Apache Ignite
right now, especially given that the paperwork has already been taken care
of. We can still decide within the Ignite community not to accept it down
the road, in which case we can toss away the branch.

Would you agree with this approach?

D.

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is a
> > huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite familiar
> > with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for
> > one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated
> > with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go"
> > criteria.
>
> Cos is absolutely correct here. Strong +1 to the above.
>
> > I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's
> > graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise,
> > feel like a community process of creating software should be thought
> > through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates" or
> > "feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board
> > with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority of
> > the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache.
> > Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling
> > products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases
> > are important here, they convey a very different meaning.
>
> Which brings me to a related question: what exactly needs to be released
> on this aggressive schedule and who is a beneficiary of this release?
>
> What I am trying to say is this: if GirdGain has a product delivery
> deadline -- the
> company can go ahead and release its product with whatever features it
> needs to.
>
> But I'm with Cos -- the community has to be given time to get comfortable
> with
> the code base if for nothing else but for licensing implications.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org>]

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is a
> huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite familiar
> with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for
> one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated
> with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go"
> criteria.

Cos is absolutely correct here. Strong +1 to the above.

> I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's
> graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise,
> feel like a community process of creating software should be thought
> through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates" or
> "feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board
> with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority of
> the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache.
> Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling
> products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases
> are important here, they convey a very different meaning.

Which brings me to a related question: what exactly needs to be released
on this aggressive schedule and who is a beneficiary of this release?

What I am trying to say is this: if GirdGain has a product delivery
deadline -- the
company can go ahead and release its product with whatever features it needs to.

But I'm with Cos -- the community has to be given time to get comfortable with
the code base if for nothing else but for licensing implications.

Thanks,
Roman.

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>]

Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is a
huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite familiar
with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for
one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated
with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go"
criteria.

I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's
graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise,
feel like a community process of creating software should be thought
through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates" or
"feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board
with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority of
the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache.
Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling
products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases
are important here, they convey a very different meaning.

We also have this documented contribution process [1]. Is there a good
reason to circumvent it in this particular case?

[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute#HowtoContribute-1.CreateGitHubpull-request

Thanks,
  Cos
--
  Take care,
Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.


On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Cos, thanks,
>
> My view is the following.
>
> Here is an endeavor to release AI 2.1 with improved DDL, .NET and C++ capabilities in June (this is discussed in a separate thread).
>
> It will be much better if the storage can get into that release as well to make it even more solid.
>
> As for the stabilization and testing the feature has already been integrated and perfectly tested with recent AI 2.0 version. This is why, personally, I don’t see any reason why this can affect the vote or potential release date. Simply, we just need to move it from the private repo to the ASF one.
>
> —
> Denis
>
>> On May 17, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I will try to look at it before the week's end. I wonder what's the
>> rush for the vote? The normal development process for any big feature
>> is to bring the code to a brunch, run through a stabilization cycle
>> and then merge into the mainline. Why are we doing something different
>> this time around?
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Cos
>> --
>>  Take care,
>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
>> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
>>
>> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
>> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
>> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Cos, Roman,
>>>
>>> Would you have time to look at the donation in the nearest time? It’s useful
>>> to hear your feedback before the voting is started.
>>>
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> From: Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache
>>> Ignite)
>>> Date: May 15, 2017 at 4:37:43 PM PDT
>>> To: dev@ignite.apache.org
>>> Reply-To: dev@ignite.apache.org
>>>
>>> The receipt of the software grant (the persistent store) was acknowledged by
>>> Craig Russel.
>>>
>>> Now, we need to move on with this
>>>
>>> In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to the
>>> template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo:
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
>>>
>>> *Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or
>>> committing the form from under your account?
>>>
>>>
>>> Roman, Cos, could you help with this?
>>>
>>> *Alex G.*, please add Apache 2.0 copyrights to all source files that are
>>> going to be donated. Presently there is no copyright at all.
>>>
>>> Everyone interested please spend some time exploring the store's docs and
>>> sources shared in my previous email. If no one has any concerns I will
>>> proceed with the donation formalities.
>>>
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>>
>>> On May 12, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> The repository with the donation is ready and available for review:
>>> https://github.com/agoncharuk/ignite/tree/pds-donate
>>>
>>> Big and main part of the sources is aggregated in “modules/pds”. The rest,
>>> that connects Apache Ignite memory architecture and SQL engine is under
>>> “core” and “indexing” modules. Alex Goncharuk should be able to point to
>>> specific files or commits if required.
>>>
>>> Here is a description:
>>> * Persistent Store Overview:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Overview
>>> * Persistent Store Internal Design:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Internal+Design
>>>
>>> The SGA will be signed and sent on Monday.
>>>
>>> In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to the
>>> template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo:
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
>>>
>>> *Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or
>>> committing the form from under your account?
>>>
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>>
>>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@boudnik.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> While no one is suggesting an IP trap laid out in the non-SGA'ed code
>>> in this particular case, we don't want to setup a precedent like this.
>>>
>>> From the overall ASF perspective I +1 what Roman has just said.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --
>>> Take care,
>>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>>> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:54PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Would a standard SGA suffice here?
>>>
>>> I believe that ASF guidelines suggest that a discussion should happen
>>> first. Once the community gets enough information, we will move to a PMC
>>> vote. I was under the impression that once the PMC vote passes, then the
>>> SGA should be provided. Or does GridGain need to provide a signed SGA
>>>
>>> right
>>>
>>> away?
>>>
>>>
>>> That reminds me of that Pelosi's self-inflicted conundrum of "In order
>>> to see the bill, we should pass the bill" ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> Haha :)
>>>
>>> SGA != code. In my view, the code should be provided to the community for a
>>> review. But I am struggling to see why should an SGA be signed prior to the
>>> community accepting the donation.
>>>
>>>
>>> There's no such thing as SGA without a reference to a code base.
>>>
>>> Also, as I explained -- as a community member I would refuse to look
>>> at the code base that doesn't have a proper licensing attached to it.
>>> SGA established this kind of proper licensing.
>>>
>>> Now, SGA is deinetly not the only way to do so, but it is the easiest
>>> and since you'd have to do it anyway the most convenient for the
>>> community.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Roman.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>]

Hi Cos, thanks,

My view is the following.

Here is an endeavor to release AI 2.1 with improved DDL, .NET and C++ capabilities in June (this is discussed in a separate thread). 

It will be much better if the storage can get into that release as well to make it even more solid.

As for the stabilization and testing the feature has already been integrated and perfectly tested with recent AI 2.0 version. This is why, personally, I don’t see any reason why this can affect the vote or potential release date. Simply, we just need to move it from the private repo to the ASF one. 

—
Denis

> On May 17, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> I will try to look at it before the week's end. I wonder what's the
> rush for the vote? The normal development process for any big feature
> is to bring the code to a brunch, run through a stabilization cycle
> and then merge into the mainline. Why are we doing something different
> this time around?
> 
> Regards,
>  Cos
> --
>  Take care,
> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> 2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
> 
> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
> and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
> might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Cos, Roman,
>> 
>> Would you have time to look at the donation in the nearest time? It’s useful
>> to hear your feedback before the voting is started.
>> 
>> —
>> Denis
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache
>> Ignite)
>> Date: May 15, 2017 at 4:37:43 PM PDT
>> To: dev@ignite.apache.org
>> Reply-To: dev@ignite.apache.org
>> 
>> The receipt of the software grant (the persistent store) was acknowledged by
>> Craig Russel.
>> 
>> Now, we need to move on with this
>> 
>> In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to the
>> template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo:
>> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
>> 
>> *Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or
>> committing the form from under your account?
>> 
>> 
>> Roman, Cos, could you help with this?
>> 
>> *Alex G.*, please add Apache 2.0 copyrights to all source files that are
>> going to be donated. Presently there is no copyright at all.
>> 
>> Everyone interested please spend some time exploring the store's docs and
>> sources shared in my previous email. If no one has any concerns I will
>> proceed with the donation formalities.
>> 
>> —
>> Denis
>> 
>> On May 12, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> The repository with the donation is ready and available for review:
>> https://github.com/agoncharuk/ignite/tree/pds-donate
>> 
>> Big and main part of the sources is aggregated in “modules/pds”. The rest,
>> that connects Apache Ignite memory architecture and SQL engine is under
>> “core” and “indexing” modules. Alex Goncharuk should be able to point to
>> specific files or commits if required.
>> 
>> Here is a description:
>> * Persistent Store Overview:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Overview
>> * Persistent Store Internal Design:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Internal+Design
>> 
>> The SGA will be signed and sent on Monday.
>> 
>> In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to the
>> template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo:
>> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
>> 
>> *Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or
>> committing the form from under your account?
>> 
>> —
>> Denis
>> 
>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@boudnik.org> wrote:
>> 
>> While no one is suggesting an IP trap laid out in the non-SGA'ed code
>> in this particular case, we don't want to setup a precedent like this.
>> 
>> From the overall ASF perspective I +1 what Roman has just said.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Take care,
>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:54PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Would a standard SGA suffice here?
>> 
>> I believe that ASF guidelines suggest that a discussion should happen
>> first. Once the community gets enough information, we will move to a PMC
>> vote. I was under the impression that once the PMC vote passes, then the
>> SGA should be provided. Or does GridGain need to provide a signed SGA
>> 
>> right
>> 
>> away?
>> 
>> 
>> That reminds me of that Pelosi's self-inflicted conundrum of "In order
>> to see the bill, we should pass the bill" ;)
>> 
>> 
>> Haha :)
>> 
>> SGA != code. In my view, the code should be provided to the community for a
>> review. But I am struggling to see why should an SGA be signed prior to the
>> community accepting the donation.
>> 
>> 
>> There's no such thing as SGA without a reference to a code base.
>> 
>> Also, as I explained -- as a community member I would refuse to look
>> at the code base that doesn't have a proper licensing attached to it.
>> SGA established this kind of proper licensing.
>> 
>> Now, SGA is deinetly not the only way to do so, but it is the easiest
>> and since you'd have to do it anyway the most convenient for the
>> community.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>]

Hey guys,

I will try to look at it before the week's end. I wonder what's the
rush for the vote? The normal development process for any big feature
is to bring the code to a brunch, run through a stabilization cycle
and then merge into the mainline. Why are we doing something different
this time around?

Regards,
  Cos
--
  Take care,
Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616  6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author,
and do not necessarily represent the views of any company the author
might be affiliated with at the moment of writing.


On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Cos, Roman,
>
> Would you have time to look at the donation in the nearest time? It’s useful
> to hear your feedback before the voting is started.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache
> Ignite)
> Date: May 15, 2017 at 4:37:43 PM PDT
> To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> Reply-To: dev@ignite.apache.org
>
> The receipt of the software grant (the persistent store) was acknowledged by
> Craig Russel.
>
> Now, we need to move on with this
>
> In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to the
> template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo:
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
>
> *Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or
> committing the form from under your account?
>
>
> Roman, Cos, could you help with this?
>
> *Alex G.*, please add Apache 2.0 copyrights to all source files that are
> going to be donated. Presently there is no copyright at all.
>
> Everyone interested please spend some time exploring the store's docs and
> sources shared in my previous email. If no one has any concerns I will
> proceed with the donation formalities.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> On May 12, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> The repository with the donation is ready and available for review:
> https://github.com/agoncharuk/ignite/tree/pds-donate
>
> Big and main part of the sources is aggregated in “modules/pds”. The rest,
> that connects Apache Ignite memory architecture and SQL engine is under
> “core” and “indexing” modules. Alex Goncharuk should be able to point to
> specific files or commits if required.
>
> Here is a description:
> * Persistent Store Overview:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Overview
> * Persistent Store Internal Design:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Internal+Design
>
> The SGA will be signed and sent on Monday.
>
> In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to the
> template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo:
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
>
> *Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or
> committing the form from under your account?
>
> —
> Denis
>
> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@boudnik.org> wrote:
>
> While no one is suggesting an IP trap laid out in the non-SGA'ed code
> in this particular case, we don't want to setup a precedent like this.
>
> From the overall ASF perspective I +1 what Roman has just said.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Take care,
> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:54PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>
>
> Would a standard SGA suffice here?
>
> I believe that ASF guidelines suggest that a discussion should happen
> first. Once the community gets enough information, we will move to a PMC
> vote. I was under the impression that once the PMC vote passes, then the
> SGA should be provided. Or does GridGain need to provide a signed SGA
>
> right
>
> away?
>
>
> That reminds me of that Pelosi's self-inflicted conundrum of "In order
> to see the bill, we should pass the bill" ;)
>
>
> Haha :)
>
> SGA != code. In my view, the code should be provided to the community for a
> review. But I am struggling to see why should an SGA be signed prior to the
> community accepting the donation.
>
>
> There's no such thing as SGA without a reference to a code base.
>
> Also, as I explained -- as a community member I would refuse to look
> at the code base that doesn't have a proper licensing attached to it.
> SGA established this kind of proper licensing.
>
> Now, SGA is deinetly not the only way to do so, but it is the easiest
> and since you'd have to do it anyway the most convenient for the
> community.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
>
>
>

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>]

Sure, those classes will be renamed to use Ignite* prefix.

Any other comments regarding Configuration or public API changes?

2017-05-16 17:12 GMT+03:00 Alexey Kuznetsov <ak...@apache.org>:

> Alexey Goncharuk,
>
> I take a look at source code and noticed classes with names
> like: GridCacheDatabaseSharedManager.java
> As far as I remember we decided that "Grid" is a kind of "deprecated"
> prefix?
>
> What do you think? Does it make sense to rename?
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Denis,
> >
> > Headers are updated, RAT check is passing now.
> >
> > 2017-05-16 2:37 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > The receipt of the software grant (the persistent store) was
> acknowledged
> > > by Craig Russel.
> > >
> > > Now, we need to move on with this
> > >
> > > > In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to
> the
> > > template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo:
> > > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
> > > >
> > > > *Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or
> > > committing the form from under your account?
> > >
> > > Roman, Cos, could you help with this?
> > >
> > > *Alex G.*, please add Apache 2.0 copyrights to all source files that
> are
> > > going to be donated. Presently there is no copyright at all.
> > >
> > > Everyone interested please spend some time exploring the store's docs
> and
> > > sources shared in my previous email. If no one has any concerns I will
> > > proceed with the donation formalities.
> > >
> > > —
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > > On May 12, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > The repository with the donation is ready and available for review:
> > > > https://github.com/agoncharuk/ignite/tree/pds-donate
> > > >
> > > > Big and main part of the sources is aggregated in “modules/pds”. The
> > > rest, that connects Apache Ignite memory architecture and SQL engine is
> > > under “core” and “indexing” modules. Alex Goncharuk should be able to
> > point
> > > to specific files or commits if required.
> > > >
> > > > Here is a description:
> > > > * Persistent Store Overview: https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Overview
> > > > * Persistent Store Internal Design: https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Internal+Design
> > > >
> > > > The SGA will be signed and sent on Monday.
> > > >
> > > > In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to
> the
> > > template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo:
> > > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
> > > >
> > > > *Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or
> > > committing the form from under your account?
> > > >
> > > > —
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > >> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@boudnik.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> While no one is suggesting an IP trap laid out in the non-SGA'ed
> code
> > > >> in this particular case, we don't want to setup a precedent like
> this.
> > > >>
> > > >> From the overall ASF perspective I +1 what Roman has just said.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> --
> > > >> Take care,
> > > >> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> > > >>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > > >>> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
> cos@apache.org
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:54PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Would a standard SGA suffice here?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I believe that ASF guidelines suggest that a discussion should
> > > happen
> > > >>>>>> first. Once the community gets enough information, we will move
> to
> > > a PMC
> > > >>>>>> vote. I was under the impression that once the PMC vote passes,
> > > then the
> > > >>>>>> SGA should be provided. Or does GridGain need to provide a
> signed
> > > SGA
> > > >>>>> right
> > > >>>>>> away?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> That reminds me of that Pelosi's self-inflicted conundrum of "In
> > > order
> > > >>>>> to see the bill, we should pass the bill" ;)
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Haha :)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> SGA != code. In my view, the code should be provided to the
> > community
> > > for a
> > > >>>> review. But I am struggling to see why should an SGA be signed
> prior
> > > to the
> > > >>>> community accepting the donation.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> There's no such thing as SGA without a reference to a code base.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Also, as I explained -- as a community member I would refuse to
> look
> > > >>> at the code base that doesn't have a proper licensing attached to
> it.
> > > >>> SGA established this kind of proper licensing.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Now, SGA is deinetly not the only way to do so, but it is the
> easiest
> > > >>> and since you'd have to do it anyway the most convenient for the
> > > >>> community.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Roman.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Alexey Kuznetsov
>

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Alexey Kuznetsov <ak...@apache.org>]

Alexey Goncharuk,

I take a look at source code and noticed classes with names
like: GridCacheDatabaseSharedManager.java
As far as I remember we decided that "Grid" is a kind of "deprecated"
prefix?

What do you think? Does it make sense to rename?

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <
alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:

> Denis,
>
> Headers are updated, RAT check is passing now.
>
> 2017-05-16 2:37 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
>
> > The receipt of the software grant (the persistent store) was acknowledged
> > by Craig Russel.
> >
> > Now, we need to move on with this
> >
> > > In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to the
> > template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo:
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
> > >
> > > *Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or
> > committing the form from under your account?
> >
> > Roman, Cos, could you help with this?
> >
> > *Alex G.*, please add Apache 2.0 copyrights to all source files that are
> > going to be donated. Presently there is no copyright at all.
> >
> > Everyone interested please spend some time exploring the store's docs and
> > sources shared in my previous email. If no one has any concerns I will
> > proceed with the donation formalities.
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> > > On May 12, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > The repository with the donation is ready and available for review:
> > > https://github.com/agoncharuk/ignite/tree/pds-donate
> > >
> > > Big and main part of the sources is aggregated in “modules/pds”. The
> > rest, that connects Apache Ignite memory architecture and SQL engine is
> > under “core” and “indexing” modules. Alex Goncharuk should be able to
> point
> > to specific files or commits if required.
> > >
> > > Here is a description:
> > > * Persistent Store Overview: https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Overview
> > > * Persistent Store Internal Design: https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Internal+Design
> > >
> > > The SGA will be signed and sent on Monday.
> > >
> > > In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to the
> > template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo:
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
> > >
> > > *Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or
> > committing the form from under your account?
> > >
> > > —
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@boudnik.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> While no one is suggesting an IP trap laid out in the non-SGA'ed code
> > >> in this particular case, we don't want to setup a precedent like this.
> > >>
> > >> From the overall ASF perspective I +1 what Roman has just said.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> --
> > >> Take care,
> > >> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> > roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > >>> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org
> >
> > wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:54PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Would a standard SGA suffice here?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I believe that ASF guidelines suggest that a discussion should
> > happen
> > >>>>>> first. Once the community gets enough information, we will move to
> > a PMC
> > >>>>>> vote. I was under the impression that once the PMC vote passes,
> > then the
> > >>>>>> SGA should be provided. Or does GridGain need to provide a signed
> > SGA
> > >>>>> right
> > >>>>>> away?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> That reminds me of that Pelosi's self-inflicted conundrum of "In
> > order
> > >>>>> to see the bill, we should pass the bill" ;)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Haha :)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> SGA != code. In my view, the code should be provided to the
> community
> > for a
> > >>>> review. But I am struggling to see why should an SGA be signed prior
> > to the
> > >>>> community accepting the donation.
> > >>>
> > >>> There's no such thing as SGA without a reference to a code base.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, as I explained -- as a community member I would refuse to look
> > >>> at the code base that doesn't have a proper licensing attached to it.
> > >>> SGA established this kind of proper licensing.
> > >>>
> > >>> Now, SGA is deinetly not the only way to do so, but it is the easiest
> > >>> and since you'd have to do it anyway the most convenient for the
> > >>> community.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Roman.
> > >
> >
> >
>



-- 
Alexey Kuznetsov

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>]

Denis,

Headers are updated, RAT check is passing now.

2017-05-16 2:37 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:

> The receipt of the software grant (the persistent store) was acknowledged
> by Craig Russel.
>
> Now, we need to move on with this
>
> > In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to the
> template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
> >
> > *Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or
> committing the form from under your account?
>
> Roman, Cos, could you help with this?
>
> *Alex G.*, please add Apache 2.0 copyrights to all source files that are
> going to be donated. Presently there is no copyright at all.
>
> Everyone interested please spend some time exploring the store's docs and
> sources shared in my previous email. If no one has any concerns I will
> proceed with the donation formalities.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On May 12, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > The repository with the donation is ready and available for review:
> > https://github.com/agoncharuk/ignite/tree/pds-donate
> >
> > Big and main part of the sources is aggregated in “modules/pds”. The
> rest, that connects Apache Ignite memory architecture and SQL engine is
> under “core” and “indexing” modules. Alex Goncharuk should be able to point
> to specific files or commits if required.
> >
> > Here is a description:
> > * Persistent Store Overview: https://cwiki.apache.org/
> confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Overview
> > * Persistent Store Internal Design: https://cwiki.apache.org/
> confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Internal+Design
> >
> > The SGA will be signed and sent on Monday.
> >
> > In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to the
> template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
> >
> > *Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or
> committing the form from under your account?
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> >> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@boudnik.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> While no one is suggesting an IP trap laid out in the non-SGA'ed code
> >> in this particular case, we don't want to setup a precedent like this.
> >>
> >> From the overall ASF perspective I +1 what Roman has just said.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> --
> >> Take care,
> >> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> >>> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:54PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Would a standard SGA suffice here?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I believe that ASF guidelines suggest that a discussion should
> happen
> >>>>>> first. Once the community gets enough information, we will move to
> a PMC
> >>>>>> vote. I was under the impression that once the PMC vote passes,
> then the
> >>>>>> SGA should be provided. Or does GridGain need to provide a signed
> SGA
> >>>>> right
> >>>>>> away?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That reminds me of that Pelosi's self-inflicted conundrum of "In
> order
> >>>>> to see the bill, we should pass the bill" ;)
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Haha :)
> >>>>
> >>>> SGA != code. In my view, the code should be provided to the community
> for a
> >>>> review. But I am struggling to see why should an SGA be signed prior
> to the
> >>>> community accepting the donation.
> >>>
> >>> There's no such thing as SGA without a reference to a code base.
> >>>
> >>> Also, as I explained -- as a community member I would refuse to look
> >>> at the code base that doesn't have a proper licensing attached to it.
> >>> SGA established this kind of proper licensing.
> >>>
> >>> Now, SGA is deinetly not the only way to do so, but it is the easiest
> >>> and since you'd have to do it anyway the most convenient for the
> >>> community.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Roman.
> >
>
>

Re: GridGain Donates Persistent Distributed Store To ASF (Apache Ignite)

[Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>]

The receipt of the software grant (the persistent store) was acknowledged by Craig Russel.

Now, we need to move on with this

> In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to the template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo:
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
> 
> *Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or committing the form from under your account?

Roman, Cos, could you help with this?

*Alex G.*, please add Apache 2.0 copyrights to all source files that are going to be donated. Presently there is no copyright at all.

Everyone interested please spend some time exploring the store's docs and sources shared in my previous email. If no one has any concerns I will proceed with the donation formalities.

—
Denis

> On May 12, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> The repository with the donation is ready and available for review:
> https://github.com/agoncharuk/ignite/tree/pds-donate
> 
> Big and main part of the sources is aggregated in “modules/pds”. The rest, that connects Apache Ignite memory architecture and SQL engine is under “core” and “indexing” modules. Alex Goncharuk should be able to point to specific files or commits if required.
> 
> Here is a description:
> * Persistent Store Overview: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Overview
> * Persistent Store Internal Design: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Persistent+Store+Internal+Design
> 
> The SGA will be signed and sent on Monday.
> 
> In the meanwhile, I’ve prepared the IP Clearance page referring to the template below but failed to commit the changes to ASF repo:
> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ip-clearance-template.html
> 
> *Roman S.*, *Cos*, could you help me with this by granting karma or committing the form from under your account?
> 
> —
> Denis
> 
>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 9:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@boudnik.org> wrote:
>> 
>> While no one is suggesting an IP trap laid out in the non-SGA'ed code
>> in this particular case, we don't want to setup a precedent like this.
>> 
>> From the overall ASF perspective I +1 what Roman has just said.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Take care,
>> Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>>> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:54PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Would a standard SGA suffice here?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I believe that ASF guidelines suggest that a discussion should happen
>>>>>> first. Once the community gets enough information, we will move to a PMC
>>>>>> vote. I was under the impression that once the PMC vote passes, then the
>>>>>> SGA should be provided. Or does GridGain need to provide a signed SGA
>>>>> right
>>>>>> away?
>>>>> 
>>>>> That reminds me of that Pelosi's self-inflicted conundrum of "In order
>>>>> to see the bill, we should pass the bill" ;)
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Haha :)
>>>> 
>>>> SGA != code. In my view, the code should be provided to the community for a
>>>> review. But I am struggling to see why should an SGA be signed prior to the
>>>> community accepting the donation.
>>> 
>>> There's no such thing as SGA without a reference to a code base.
>>> 
>>> Also, as I explained -- as a community member I would refuse to look
>>> at the code base that doesn't have a proper licensing attached to it.
>>> SGA established this kind of proper licensing.
>>> 
>>> Now, SGA is deinetly not the only way to do so, but it is the easiest
>>> and since you'd have to do it anyway the most convenient for the
>>> community.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Roman.
>