Ivan, it is the new GitHub default "On Oct. 1, 2020, any new repositories you create will use main as the default branch, instead of master" [1]
[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/github-to-replace-master-with-main-starting-next-month/ On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 1:12 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also I noticed that ignite-3 repository has "main" but not "master" > branch. Who can shed light on this? Did not find an explanation in > this thread. > > 2020-12-22 13:09 GMT+03:00, Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com>: > > I noticed some free-from commit messages in ignite-3 repository. I > > think we should use ticket-based workflow and commit messages as > > usual. > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/commits/main > > > > 2020-12-21 10:55 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>: > >> 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 > >>>> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin >
