That name will definitely confuse Jira users. Let's stick to basic devision by 2.x and 3.x — it seems most intuitive and has lots of examples inside ASF, look at the Tomcat for instance.
> On 25 Sep 2021, at 21:05, Saikat Maitra <saikat.mai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>
