Folks,
Thanks to everyone for participating in the call. Here is the list of points we've agreed on and the list of actions which should be discussed in more details. = AGREED = == Versioning == grand.major.bugfix[-rc_number] The 'grand' version is fixed while both Ignite architectures (current version 2.x and 3.x) are in a state of active development/maintained or until otherwise is discussed further. This means: - the master branch of the ignite repository [2] always release under the '2.x.x' version - the main branch of the ignite-3 repository [1] always release under the '3.x.x' version The 'major' versions for each architecture may contain breaking backwards compatibility changes compared to the previous one if the following criteria are met: - users should be warned about breaking release changes (the ways of notification should be additionally discussed and agreed upon) - the deprecation rules may be applied for the current 'major' release (the ways of deprecation must be additionally discussed and agreed upon) - current @deprecated already have enough time live and some of them can be removed using common sense The 'bugfix' version is used for emergency releases and can't contain any breaking backwards compatibility changes. == Commitments == Any commitment to support previous releases (e.g. 1 year, 1 quarter) have no sense to the open-source Ignite community in the case of observed backward compatibility violations, however, in any of such cases, an emergency release can be performed according to the accepted release procedure. = DISCUSSION & SUGGESTIONS = == Deprecation rules == The API deprecation rules must be discussed and agreed upon in more details. The list of options we have: - deprecate and remove API allowed in the next release - deprecate and remove API allowed through the one release - deprecation may contain comments - the release version then the API will be changed - deprecation may contain comments - the date from which the API changes allowed I've checked the `JEP 277 Enhanced Deprecation` [3] proposal which adds the `forRemoval` and `since` optional elements to the deprecated annotation and I think we can use a similar approach here with some additions. For instance, if the last released version is 2.10 my suggestions would be the following: - [case: change API as quickly as possible] mark some API as deprecated, set 'since' version 2.12, change it in the 2.12 release major version. - [case: deprecate API without intention to change] mark API as deprecated without 'since' options, change it without notifications since 2.13 releases and so on. == User notification rules == Uses must be well-notified about the planned backward compatibility violations. The options we have: - the notification thought the source code with well-described JavaDocs - add labels to the JIRA issue if some deprecations occur in the related patch - add deprecation and backward compatibility paragraph to the RELEASE_NOTES - add a page to the Apache Ignite website with a backwards compatibility description between the closest versions All of the above must be done. == Experimental and unstable APIs == The options we have: - only the new API can be marked as unstable and/or experimental - such APIs can be changed without any notifications Please, share your thoughts. [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3 [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite [3] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/277 On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 at 19:41, Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org> wrote: > > Folks, > > let me add my 50 cents. I don't see major issues with this IEP, for now. > And I really looking forward to talking about it. I can't get what causes > misunderstanding. > > The only thing that concerns me here is that IEP requires the community to > support solutions for 1 year, 1 quarter, etc. > > Apache community is not a commercial company that provides support of any > kind, and I would be reluctant to add these or similar statements to any > public documents. At any point in time, the community and PMC can vote and > introduce any major feature breaking compatibility. We tend to avoid such > actions to keep users best interest. But it is not a commitment. > > Sincerely > > > чт, 11 мар. 2021 г. в 23:11, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org>: > > > Val, > > > > > > I'm sorry if anything from what I've said sounded disrespectful. All > > of you are examples for me to follow :-) > > > > Have you checked the `motivation` [1] topic on the IEP-69 page? Should > > I add more details to it prior to the call? I want to make Ignite > > better and also think that the current 2.x version with all the > > advantages and disadvantages is far from exhausted its capabilities. > > I'm pretty sure the same motivation page exists for 3.0 version > > describing the advantages and disadvantages of developing mentioned > > IEPs. It will be good to share it prior to the cal also. > > > > > > [1] > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-69%3A+The+evolutionary+release+process#IEP69:Theevolutionaryreleaseprocess-Motivation > > > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 01:21, Valentin Kulichenko > > <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Ksenya, thanks for scheduling this so quickly! > > > > > > Guys, I hope we can make this discussion constructive. Please keep in > > mind > > > that Ignite 3 is an ongoing project supported by multiple contributors, > > > committers, and PMC members. Neglecting 6+ months of effort and > > suggesting > > > that it's just "prototyping some cool features and nothing more" is > > really > > > bizarre, and, quite frankly, sounds disrespectful to fellow developers > > > (although I'm 100% sure it was not intended this way). > > > > > > Maxim, one of the biggest issues I have with your IEP is that I don't > > > understand the motivation behind it. If you don't mind, I would like to > > > suggest that you kick off the meeting with a detailed explanation > > > of exactly that. The first step is to achieve a mutual understanding of > > > each other's goals. Once we do that, I'm sure we will easily find a > > > solution. > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 8:55 AM Kseniya Romanova < > > romanova.ks....@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Let's make a quick call next week and try to find a compromise which > > can > > > > get the process moving: > > > > https://www.meetup.com/Moscow-Apache-Ignite-Meetup/events/276851588/ > > > > > > > > ср, 10 мар. 2021 г. в 16:27, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
