Hi, I like the major version update like Ignite 3.0 but if we were to come up with a name my other suggestion would be
Ignite-kernel kernel - for the central or most important part of something Also taken references from Compute kernel - a routine compiled for high throughput accelerators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute_kernel Regards, Saikat On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 3:12 AM Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kafka and Spark didn't split codebases (at least to my knowledge). > Separating codebases was the fundamental step, everything else is a > technicality. > > Having said that, I will be OK with your suggestion as I don't really see a > difference, although I'm not sure we will be able to come up with a name > that is more intuitive than a separate project :) > > Let's see what others think. > > -Val > > On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:23 AM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Moving the discussion back to the dev list. > > > > Val, Andrey, for that purpose we can ask INFRA to create a > > special mandatory field such as "Architecture" with two predefined > values - > > "Ignite 2.x" and "Ignite 3.x". Come up with a better name, it needs to be > > intuitive enough even for users who submit issues. What disturbs me is > that > > neither Kafka nor Spark have a different project for the recently > released > > versions 3. A different GitHub project is not that disturbing. > > > > - > > Denis > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:09 AM Valentin Kulichenko < > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Denis, > > > > > > From a purely technical perspective, these are indeed two separate > > > projects, because they are based on different codebases. The split > you're > > > talking about happened a year ago, when we created the repo for Ignite > 3. > > > This significantly differs from the 1.x->2.x transition, as these two > > > shared the codebase. > > > > > > For the same reason, a bug filed for 2.x can't be just transitioned to > > > 3.x. It will either not exist in 3.x in the first place, or will > require > > a > > > completely different fix, which will mean two different tickets. > > > > > > That said, I still believe that Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are just > different > > > versions of the same product, because, as you correctly mentioned, they > > > target "same users, community, use cases". At the same time, they are > > > developed as different projects on the technical level. Let's not > confuse > > > these two aspects with each other - they are largely orthogonal. > > > > > > At this point, creating a Jira project doesn't change anything > > > fundamentally. It's only about ease of use of our tooling and efficient > > > ticket management. > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:15 PM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > >> Folks, you confuse me. I've never treated Ignite 3 as a different > > >> project. It's the same Ignite (distributed database for > high-performance > > >> computing...) but on a modernized architecture and APIs - thus, a > major > > >> version. Same users, community, use cases. > > >> > > >> But, I'm against separate JIRA or Confluence projects. This is how > > you're > > >> truly stepping on a project-split path. When we used to work on Ignite > > 2 we > > >> could live within the same JIRA space with Ignite 1. Moreover, many > > tickets > > >> that are filed against Ignite 2 can be fixed in Ignite 3 only - which > > is a > > >> version change in our JIRA. > > >> > > >> So, -1 from me for the separate JIRA proposal. > > >> > > >> - > > >> Denis > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 8:23 AM Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Val, > > >>> > > >>> I don't see any issues having different projects under Ignite's brand > > >>> from the developer's side except the versioning issue. This is a bad > > >>> case when two different projects must have dependent versions and > even > > >>> worse when some marketing things affect the development and release > > >>> processes. > > >>> > > >>> I agree with Nikolay and Ilya - the right way here is having > > >>> "Ignite<new-gen abrv>" and versioning started from zero. However, > both > > >>> of Ignite's can easily co-exist. > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 22:13, Valentin Kulichenko > > >>> <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > Ilya, > > >>> > > > >>> > What exactly is this different focus and different values? Why > > exactly > > >>> do you think Ignite 3 will never cover all the current features? And > > why is > > >>> this the criteria in the first place? I work on both Ignite 2 and > > Ignite 3 > > >>> almost every day and I simply don't think all this is true. I > honestly > > >>> can't understand what this fuss is all about. > > >>> > > > >>> > Folks, quite frankly, this discussion seems counterproductive at > this > > >>> point. Are there any particular suggestions? If so, let's discuss > them. > > >>> Otherwise, let's just do some coding - isn't that why we are all > here? > > :) > > >>> > > > >>> > -Val > > >>> > > > >>> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ilya Kasnacheev < > > >>> ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> >> > > >>> >> Hello! > > >>> >> > > >>> >> I concur with Nikolay. Maybe Ignite 3 should be called "Ignite > <some > > >>> adverb>" because it is a product with a different focus and values > > which > > >>> has no plans to cover the entirety of Ignite's features. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> Regards, > > >>> >> -- > > >>> >> Ilya Kasnacheev > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:56, Nikolay Izhikov < > nizhi...@apache.org > > >: > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> Hello, Ignite PMC. > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> Is there any reason to keep calling Ignite3 as "Ignite"? > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> It seems to me that from the very beginning Ignite3 is a new > > >>> database engine built on completely new architecture. > > >>> >>> Ignite2 and Ignite3 has nothing similar except the name. All is > > >>> different > > >>> >>> - source code. > > >>> >>> - repository. > > >>> >>> - features. > > >>> >>> - API. > > >>> >>> - road map. > > >>> >>> - contributors. > > >>> >>> - contribution rules. > > >>> >>> - release cycle. > > >>> >>> *** you are here *** > > >>> >>> - jira > > >>> >>> - confluence > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> Should we accept the fact that thing we calling as "Ignite3" is > > just > > >>> another project? > > >>> >>> Can you, please, share your vision on how Ignite and Ignite3 > should > > >>> coexists? > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> вт, 21 сент. 2021 г. в 17:13, Dmitry Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org > >: > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> Ok, if nobody minds, I'll create spaces a bit later. > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> I hope it is not too urgent. > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> Sincerely, > > >>> >>>> Dmitriy Pavlov > > >>> >>>> > > >>> >>>> On 2021/09/21 10:37:42, Valentin Kulichenko < > > >>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> >>>> > Hi Dmitry, > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > According to Infra, this has to be done through > > >>> http://selfserve.apache.org/, > > >>> >>>> > but only PMC chairs have access. > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > Could you please assist with the creation of the Jira project > > and > > >>> >>>> > Confluence space? > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > -Val > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:46 AM Valentin Kulichenko < > > >>> >>>> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> >>>> > > Infra requests created: > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22349 > > >>> >>>> > > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-22350 > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > -Val > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:50 AM Petr Ivanov < > > >>> mr.wei...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> >>>> > > > > >>> >>>> > >> +1 > > >>> >>>> > >> > > >>> >>>> > >> Since we've agreed that there are two projects (that are > > >>> Ignite2 and > > >>> >>>> > >> Ignite3), separate development environments seem to be > > logical > > >>> and natural > > >>> >>>> > >> course of things. > > >>> >>>> > >> > > >>> >>>> > >> > On 18 Sep 2021, at 12:42, Alexander Polovtcev < > > >>> alexpolovt...@gmail.com> > > >>> >>>> > >> wrote: > > >>> >>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> > >> > +1 > > >>> >>>> > >> > This is a welcome proposal, because we already have some > > >>> pending Ignite > > >>> >>>> > >> 3 > > >>> >>>> > >> > specific documents, and it is not clear where to put them > > at > > >>> the moment. > > >>> >>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> > >> > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 4:22 AM Valentin Kulichenko < > > >>> >>>> > >> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> >>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> > >> >> Igniters, > > >>> >>>> > >> >> > > >>> >>>> > >> >> I think it's clear to all of us that Ignite 2.x and 3.x > > >>> will coexist > > >>> >>>> > >> for a > > >>> >>>> > >> >> while. They are developed in separate Git repos, but we > > >>> still > > >>> >>>> > >> accumulate > > >>> >>>> > >> >> the tickets for both versions in the same Jira project, > > >>> which seems to > > >>> >>>> > >> >> complicate the ticket management. > > >>> >>>> > >> >> > > >>> >>>> > >> >> For example, we use the "ignite-3" label for 3.x > tickets, > > >>> but this > > >>> >>>> > >> approach > > >>> >>>> > >> >> is fragile. If someone forgets to add the label to a new > > >>> ticket, it's > > >>> >>>> > >> >> likely to be lost. We need a better separation. > > >>> >>>> > >> >> > > >>> >>>> > >> >> All the above is true for Wiki as well - we use a single > > >>> Confluence > > >>> >>>> > >> space. > > >>> >>>> > >> >> > > >>> >>>> > >> >> I suggest creating a new Jira project and a new > Confluence > > >>> space for > > >>> >>>> > >> Ignite > > >>> >>>> > >> >> 3 and moving all the relevant tickets and pages there. > > >>> >>>> > >> >> > > >>> >>>> > >> >> Any thoughts or objections? > > >>> >>>> > >> >> > > >>> >>>> > >> >> -Val > > >>> >>>> > >> >> > > >>> >>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> > >> > > > >>> >>>> > >> > -- > > >>> >>>> > >> > With regards, > > >>> >>>> > >> > Aleksandr Polovtcev > > >>> >>>> > >> > > >>> >>>> > >> > > >>> >>>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >
