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
