There is no problem to have both in new repository, if skilled enthusiast will take over that job.
I guess we will stick to Maven for time being but development of Gradle-based building system can be done in parallel. I can even add corresponding development build configurations for TeamCity, or even introduce some kind of switch — so that we can test old and new build approaches and provide seamless transition if we agree on that. > On 19 Dec 2020, at 01:00, Valentin Kulichenko <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Ivan, > > There was a very brief discussion around this. Basically, it looks like > switching from Maven to something else is not going to bring much value, > but at the same time will be quite demanding because the community has much > more experience with Maven. However, I would say that it is still > debatable at this point -- please feel free to share your thoughts on this. > > -Val > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 10:53 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 >>
