Rather strange, cause the repository on GitHub is only a mirror of Apache's GitBox. Although — I guess Apache applied the same policy to its repositories, if not was it's author...
> On 22 Dec 2020, at 13:34, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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 >>
