Folks,
Agree, the discussion may be endless without compromises on all sides. I always think that if there is no consensus (and I see from the thread [1] that it's was no found) for such important decisions like product future development and releases AFS provides the voting procedure. Without fixing the results of the discussion [1] it sounds like prototyping some cool features and nothing more. So, back to Denis suggestion can you share - what would be the best time for all of us (considering different time zones) to have a call? I also think that we should start a vote about the future releases on our Apache Ignite web-site and user-list, thus all who are using the Apache Ignite may choose the best option they like. [1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Ignite-3-0-development-approach-td49922.html On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 03:57, Valentin Kulichenko <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Maxim, > > I disagree with the suggestions. Several community members have already > pointed out the discussion about Ignite 3.0 [1]. During that discussion, we > did agree on the scope of the changes for 3.0, as well as the general > direction for the product. The new repo was created not to "develop from > scratch", but to provide an opportunity for the community members to > actively work on Ignite 3 without killing the Ignite 2.x. No alternative > solution for this was presented, so we went ahead with the process -- I > consider that to be an example of the silent consensus. > > I also want to emphasize that Ignite 3 is active and is moving forward. If > you look at the ignite-3 repo, commits and PRs are coming in on regular > basis. We also had the first alpha release early in the year. I do agree > with you, however, that there is not too much activity on the dev list. As > far as I can tell, the main reason for this is that communication moved to > IEPs and GitHub PRs, for better or worse. This is something we all can talk > about -- I personally would like to see more discussions on the dev list. > > And finally, I agree with Denis. This whole situation is > counter-productive. I'm happy to jump on a Discord or any other voice chat > to discuss in more detail. > > [1] > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Ignite-3-0-development-approach-td49922.html > > -Val > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:09 AM Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Ignites, > > > > > > I've created the IEP-69 [1] which describes the evolutionary release > > process for the Apache Ignite 2.x version. You can find all the > > details of my suggestion there, but here you can find the crucial > > points: > > > > 0. Versioning - grand.major.bug-fix[-rc_number] > > > > 1. Prepare the next 3.0 release based on 2.x with some breaking > > compatibility changes. The same things happen from time to time with > > other Apache projects like Hadoop, Spark. > > > > 2. Discuss with the whole Community and assign the right release > > version to the activities related to the development of the new Ignite > > architecture (currently all the changes you can find in the ignite-3 > > branch). > > I see no 3.0 discussions on the dev-list and I see no-activity with > > the 3.0 version currently. So, it's better to remove the `lock` from > > the 3.0 version and allow the removal of obsolete features. > > > > 3. Guarantee the PDS compatibility between the `grand` versions of the > > Apache Ignite for the next year. > > > > 4. Guarantee the bug-fix release for the last 2.x Apache Ignite > > version for the next year. > > > > 5. Perform some improvements which break the backward compatibility, > > for instance: removing @deprecated API (except metrics), removing > > obsolete modules, changing the cluster defaults. You can find > > additional details on the IEP-69 page [1]. > > > > > > Please, share your thoughts. > > > > > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-69%3A+The+evolutionary+release+process > >
