I mean that Ignite 2.x will continue to use old scheme and Ignite 3
will be e.g. Ignite 21.1 and so on.

2021-09-27 14:57 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>:
> How will not they clash if version is based only on date?
>
>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 14:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Today it is quite common to use calendar-based versioning scheme, e.g.
>> [1]. We can consider it for Ignite 3. Luckily versions will not clash.
>>
>> [1] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/docs/releases/index.html
>>
>> 2021-09-27 10:49 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>:
>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>
>


-- 

Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

Reply via email to