Hi Igniters, Forgive me that I am not reading dev list carefully these days. Was it explicitly decided that Maven should be used as a build system for Ignite 3? As there is a new repository we possibly can update our build tools as well. What do you think?
2020-12-17 22:45 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > Hi Dmitriy, > > I don't think there is any reason for concern at this point. The community > agreed on the scope of the changes for 3.0 - it is described on Wiki. The > scope is quite big, so it is clear that 2.x and 3.x will have to exist in > parallel for a significant amount of time, so we need a place where we can > merge the code for 3.x. Thus, I've created this new repo. We already have > multiple IEPs, as well as several contributors who are actively involved in > development. Some of the first PRs were merged today. > > I didn't hear any objections since the repo was created. > > -Val > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 7:28 AM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Folks, I'm a little bit concerned about the simultaneous >> - existence of the repo https://github.com/apache/ignite-3 and PRs for >> that >> repo >> - and a couple of downvotes from PMC members. >> >> Is it all fine here? Was there any vote /discussion where it was >> discussed >> and consensus approved? What is the status of the ignite-3 repo? >> >> вт, 15 дек. 2020 г. в 17:30, Carbone, Adam <adam.carb...@bottomline.com>: >> >> > I don't believe Java 7 was LTS, and I hope that others will have >> > upgraded >> > long before that. If that is the release timeframe for 3.0, then I >> suppose >> > that would makes sense, I would still doubt that people would be going >> > newer than java 11, just my opinion of what I'm seeing. >> > >> > Regards >> > ~adam >> > >> > Adam Carbone | Director of Innovation – Intelligent Platform Team | >> > Bottomline Technologies >> > Office: 603-501-6446 | Mobile: 603-570-8418 >> > www.bottomline.com >> > >> > >> > >> > On 12/15/20, 4:25 AM, "Ilya Kasnacheev" <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hello! >> > >> > I guess Ignite 3.0 will be ready for production use somewhere in >> 2022, >> > realistically. By that time, Java 8 will be long enough out of >> support >> > so >> > that most companies will actually forbid its use, WRT >> > vulnerabilities >> > et >> > all. >> > >> > After all we have managed to upgrade from Java 7 to Java 8 and only >> > got a >> > minor amount of complaints. >> > >> > Regards, >> > -- >> > Ilya Kasnacheev >> > >> > >> > пн, 14 дек. 2020 г. в 19:06, Carbone, Adam < >> > adam.carb...@bottomline.com>: >> > >> > > So just one bit to consider... Are there features that you need >> > to >> > use in >> > > these newer versions of java? Or are we just updating to stay >> > current? The >> > > reason I ask is that there are still lots of people in an >> enterprise >> > space >> > > that are beholden to having to support legacy JAVAEE supported >> > applications >> > > on Websphere, Weblogic, Redhat, etc... and the organizations that >> > use those >> > > platforms are slow to move... Most of them are still on Java8 >> > > >> > > So as a platform I think a strong consideration needs to be >> > towards >> > having >> > > the broadest possible support profile until it becomes an >> impediment >> > to >> > > doing things that the platform needs. So far I haven't seen huge >> > things in >> > > the newer versions of java that are must haves ( a few exceptions >> are >> > > things that would be really nice to take advantage of ). >> > > >> > > I think that apache commons has taken the right approach by >> > staying >> > on >> > > java 8 giving the largest possible user base. >> > > >> > > Even standardizing on java 11 would have to make us reconsider >> > Ignite as >> > > the platform we are using, we are not so invested in it as of >> > now, >> > even >> > > though we have big plans to leverage it. Just because we aren't >> sure >> > when >> > > we are going to be able to upgrade from java8. It has support >> > through 2022, >> > > so I imagine that is when we will be discussing that. >> > > >> > > Regards >> > > >> > > ~Adam >> > > >> > > Adam Carbone | Director of Innovation – Intelligent Platform Team >> > | >> > > Bottomline Technologies >> > > Office: 603-501-6446 | Mobile: 603-570-8418 >> > > www.bottomline.com >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On 11/24/20, 7:38 AM, "Alexey Zinoviev" <zaleslaw....@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > Java 15 is better, VarHandles, ForeignMemory access and so >> > on. >> > > >> > > In both cases, I support the Java version 11 and higher for >> > the >> > > development! >> > > >> > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 15:21, Andrey Mashenkov < >> > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>: >> > > >> > > > Let's add maven plugins for sanity checks at the early >> stage. >> > > > I've created a ticket for this [1]. >> > > > >> > > > Also, I've found initial pom.xml has a target version Java >> > 8. >> > > > Do we intend to move to Java 11 (or may be next LTS) and >> > drop >> > Java 8 >> > > in >> > > > Ignite 3.0? >> > > > >> > > > [1] >> > > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13751__;!!O3mv9RujDHg!37ujwREhL1l-B3DmRXix6yaN1dE1KgH1Tx_tSl0eLZe4x1y0NnUlF4MzW5FeKAO2Ejs8$ >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:40 AM Valentin Kulichenko < >> > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Folks, >> > > > > >> > > > > I went ahead and created the repository [1]. I also >> > configured a >> > > TeamCity >> > > > > project [2] that runs all available JUnit tests on every >> > PR >> > > creation or >> > > > > update. It also sends the status update to GitHub so that >> > it's >> > > reflected >> > > > in >> > > > > the PR itself so that we can do merges directly from >> GitHub. >> > Basic >> > > steps >> > > > to >> > > > > make a change are described on the Wiki page [3]. >> > > > > >> > > > > Let me know if you have any questions. >> > > > > >> > > > > [1] >> > > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/ignite-3__;!!O3mv9RujDHg!37ujwREhL1l-B3DmRXix6yaN1dE1KgH1Tx_tSl0eLZe4x1y0NnUlF4MzW5FeKIq24lxF$ >> > > > > [2] >> > > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project/ignite3__;!!O3mv9RujDHg!37ujwREhL1l-B3DmRXix6yaN1dE1KgH1Tx_tSl0eLZe4x1y0NnUlF4MzW5FeKFGL_oJx$ >> > > > > [3] >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Apache*Ignite*3.0*ApacheIgnite3.0-DevelopmentProcess__;Kysj!!O3mv9RujDHg!37ujwREhL1l-B3DmRXix6yaN1dE1KgH1Tx_tSl0eLZe4x1y0NnUlF4MzW5FeKNhWzQ0s$ >> > > > > >> > > > > -Val >> > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 4:24 PM Valentin Kulichenko < >> > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, guys. It looks like we are much closer to the >> > consensus >> > > now. I >> > > > > > totally on board with the plan, but I would also like >> > to >> > address >> > > the >> > > > > > short-term needs. As I've already mentioned earlier, >> there >> > are >> > > several >> > > > > > active IEPs, but we still don't have even a preliminary >> > technical >> > > > process >> > > > > > for working on these IEPs. I believe this might be >> > frustrating >> > > for the >> > > > > > folks who would like to commit code. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The scope we agreed on is quite big, and it will surely >> > take >> > > > significant >> > > > > > time to implement all the changes and stabilize them. >> > Therefore, >> > > it's >> > > > > clear >> > > > > > to me that we will have to maintain 2.x and 3.x in >> > parallel for >> > > quite >> > > > > some >> > > > > > time - this needs to be addressed somehow. I'm >> > convinced >> > that >> > > having a >> > > > > > separate repo is the ONLY way to do that, and so far, I >> > haven't >> > > heard >> > > > any >> > > > > > clear alternatives or reasons why we shouldn't do this. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > That said, I'm inclined to proceed with this in the >> > next >> > few >> > > days - I >> > > > > will >> > > > > > create a repo and describe the process (which we, of >> > course, can >> > > > discuss >> > > > > > and modify going forward). Let's, at the very least, >> > try >> > and see >> > > where >> > > > it >> > > > > > leads us. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > If someone has any concrete alternative options on how >> > to >> > we can >> > > > maintain >> > > > > > two major versions in parallel, let's have another >> > voice >> > > discussion >> > > > this >> > > > > > Friday. If we do the meeting, we should set it up with >> > a >> > clear >> > > goal to >> > > > > make >> > > > > > a decision. Please let me know if there is interest in >> > this. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -Val >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:31 AM Alexey Goncharuk < >> > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> Good, >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> I think we have an intermediate agreement on the scope >> and >> > > > significance >> > > > > of >> > > > > >> the changes we want to make. I suggest creating >> > separate >> > > discussion >> > > > > >> streams >> > > > > >> and calls for each of the suggested topics so that: >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> - It is clear for the community what is the >> motivation >> > of the >> > > > stream >> > > > > >> (this includes both functional targets and >> > technical >> > debt >> > > issues >> > > > > >> pointed >> > > > > >> out by Sergey) >> > > > > >> - Who is planning to take an active part in each of >> the >> > > streams >> > > > (i.e. >> > > > > >> the 'design committee', as Sergey suggested) >> > > > > >> - What are the intermediate and final goals for >> > each >> > of the >> > > streams >> > > > > >> - What are the cross-stream interactions and how we >> > > integrate them >> > > > > >> - How each of the streams will be integrated with >> > the >> > current >> > > > > codebase >> > > > > >> based on the above (here is where we will see >> > whether >> > > drop-in or >> > > > > >> incremental approaches make more sense) >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Best regards, >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- Best regards, Ivan Pavlukhin
