Hi, Send an email to this address: dev-unsubscr...@ignite.apache.org
- Denis On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:28 AM C Ravikiran <itsmeravikira...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Could you please help me to unsubscribe all these ignite mails. > > I have unsubscribed it, but still I am getting lot of emails > Could you please help me.. > > On Wed, 22 Jul, 2020, 9:45 pm Anton Kalashnikov, <kaa....@yandex.ru> > wrote: > > > Sorry, I was mistaken, we can not leave these methods because at least > > FileSystemConfiguration and HadoopConfiguration require corresponded > > classes that were deleted. So I think we should just remove it right now. > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Anton Kalashnikov > > > > > > > > 22.07.2020, 18:56, "Anton Kalashnikov" <kaa....@yandex.ru>: > > > Hi, > > > > > > All of these methods are from IgniteConfiguration: > > > Hadoop configuration: > > > - HadoopConfiguration getHadoopConfiguration() > > > - IgniteConfiguration setHadoopConfiguration(HadoopConfiguration > > hadoopCfg) > > > > > > IGFS (Ignite In-Memory File System) configurations: > > > - FileSystemConfiguration[] getFileSystemConfiguration > > > - IgniteConfiguration > > setFileSystemConfiguration(FileSystemConfiguration... igfsCfg) > > > > > > thread pool size that will be used to process outgoing IGFS messages: > > > - IgniteConfiguration setIgfsThreadPoolSize(int poolSize) > > > - int getIgfsThreadPoolSize() > > > > > > Of course, I can leave these methods intact but they will be doing > > nothing so API formally wouldn't be changed but, in fact, features would > be > > removed. Does it make sense? I don't think so and in my opinion, perhaps > it > > is ok to remove these methods right now if we are ready to remove these > > features right now. (but again, if there are some concerns about it, I > can > > easily to leave these methods with empty implementation) > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Anton Kalashnikov > > > > > > 22.07.2020, 17:47, "Denis Magda" <dma...@apache.org>: > > >> Hi Alex, > > >> > > >> It's been a year since we voted to discontinue this integration [1] > > and it > > >> wasn't removed from the source code earlier only because of the > > internal > > >> dependencies with the ML component. Now all the dependencies are gone > > and > > >> Ignite 2.9 is the right version to finish the discontinuation > process. > > It > > >> would make sense to wait for Ignite 3.0 only there are some breaking > > >> changes in the APIs that will stay in Ignite. > > >> > > >> @Anton Kalashnikov <akalashni...@gridgain.com>, you mentioned that > > you > > >> removed some methods from the configuration. Could you please list > them > > >> here? Are they Hadoop-specific or generic? > > >> > > >> [1] > > >> > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/VOTE-Complete-Discontinuation-of-IGFS-and-Hadoop-Accelerator-td42405.html > > >> > > >> - > > >> Denis > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:52 AM Alex Plehanov < > plehanov.a...@gmail.com > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Guys, > > >>> > > >>> Any updates here? Looks like we still don't have a consensus about > > release > > >>> version for this patch (already mention it in the release thread). > > >>> Currently, the ticket is still targeted to 2.9. > > >>> > > >>> ср, 15 июл. 2020 г. в 00:40, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > >>> > > >>> > I don't think it's required to wait until Ignite 3.0 to make this > > happen. > > >>> > If I'm not mistaken, we stopped releasing Hadoop binaries and > > sources a > > >>> > long time ago (at least you can't longer find them on the > downloads > > >>> page). > > >>> > Also, we removed all the mentioning from the documentation and > > website. > > >>> > Nobody complained or requested for a maintenance release since > > that time. > > >>> > Thus, I would remove the integration in 2.9. If anybody shows up > > later > > >>> then > > >>> > they can use the sources in the 2.8 branch and do whatever they > > want. > > >>> > > > >>> > - > > >>> > Denis > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 3:52 AM Pavel Tupitsyn < > > ptupit...@apache.org> > > >>> > wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > > We are breaking backwards compatibility, > > >>> > > so this can be only done for Ignite 3.0, am I right? > > >>> > > > > >>> > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 1:46 PM Anton Kalashnikov < > > kaa....@yandex.ru> > > >>> > > wrote: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Hi everyone, > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > The task of removal IGFS and Hadoop accelerator is ready to > > review.( > > >>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11942) > > >>> > > > I've already asked some guys to take a look at it but if > > somebody > > >>> > > familiar > > >>> > > > with this part of code, feel free to take a look at the > changes > > >>> > > > too(especially scripts changes). > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > I also think it is good to decide which release it should be > > planned > > >>> > on. > > >>> > > > This task planned for 2.9 right now but I should notice that > > first of > > >>> > all > > >>> > > > there are a lot of changes and secondly there are some > changes > > in > > >>> > public > > >>> > > > API(removed some methods from configuration). So maybe it > > makes sense > > >>> > to > > >>> > > > move this ticket to the next release. What do you think? > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > -- > > >>> > > > Best regards, > > >>> > > > Anton Kalashnikov > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > 10.02.2020, 15:45, "Alexey Zinoviev" <zaleslaw....@gmail.com > >: > > >>> > > > > Thank you so you much! Will wait:) > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > пн, 10 февр. 2020 г. в 15:13, Alexey Goncharuk < > > >>> > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>: > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Got it, then no need to rush, let's wait for the TF-IGFS > > >>> > decoupling. > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> пн, 10 февр. 2020 г. в 13:15, Alexey Zinoviev < > > >>> > > zaleslaw....@gmail.com > > >>> > > > >: > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > Tensorflow integration uses IGFS, if you have any idea > > how to > > >>> > store > > >>> > > > files > > >>> > > > >> > in memory by another way, please suggest something. > > >>> > > > >> > I hope to decouple Ignite-TF integration to the separate > > >>> > repository > > >>> > > > >> before > > >>> > > > >> > release 2.9 with its own file system over Ignite Caches > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > пн, 10 февр. 2020 г. в 12:49, Ivan Pavlukhin < > > >>> > vololo...@gmail.com > > >>> > > >: > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >> > > Is not it blocked by > > >>> > > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10292 as > > stated > > >>> > in > > >>> > > > JIRA? > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > @Alex Zinoviev could you please shed some light on > this? > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > Best regards, > > >>> > > > >> > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > пн, 10 февр. 2020 г. в 12:46, Anton Kalashnikov < > > >>> > > kaa....@yandex.ru > > >>> > > > >: > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > I found the correct ticket for such activity - > > >>> > > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11942 > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > -- > > >>> > > > >> > > > Best regards, > > >>> > > > >> > > > Anton Kalashnikov > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > 10.02.2020, 12:16, "Anton Kalashnikov" < > > kaa....@yandex.ru > > >>> >: > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Hello. > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > I created a ticket for this activity - > > >>> > > > >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12647. > > And if > > >>> we > > >>> > > are > > >>> > > > >> still > > >>> > > > >> > > in consensus I'll do it at the nearest time(I've > > already had > > >>> > the > > >>> > > > >> prepared > > >>> > > > >> > > code). > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > -- > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Best regards, > > >>> > > > >> > > > > Anton Kalashnikov > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > 10.02.2020, 12:07, "Alexey Goncharuk" < > > >>> > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com > > >>> > > > >> >: > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Folks, > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> I think there is a consensus here, but we did not > > remove > > >>> > > IGFS > > >>> > > > >> > > neither in > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> 2.7 nor in 2.8, did we? Should we schedule a > > >>> corresponding > > >>> > > > ticket > > >>> > > > >> > > for 2.9? > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >
