Ivan, I'm not pushing, I'm trying to apply the lazy consensus. It soon will be a whole month since I've started the discussion - more than enough to express concerns and provide alternative suggestions. Please keep in mind that we are trying to address a very specific technical problem that influences the development. "Do nothing" is not really an option here.
Either way, I will put the initial suggestion for the vote. -Val On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 12:24 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Val, > > > Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear > picture on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1. > > For a moment I felt that the proposal is pushed. Let's not do so. The > subject is very important, years impact I suppose. And the best way > here is to reach absolute consensus. Without tight timelines so far. > In case if we fail with consensus we can arrange formal voting. > > 2021-09-29 14:34 GMT+03:00, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com>: > > I am watching how Apache Ignite does evolve for over a 3 years already > and > > see that such hidden (almost no Open Source Community points could be > > achieved for refactoring and addressing something that is not directly > > project's source executable code) issues drown under constant pressure of > > new features and releases. > > > > I have never created issues for Maven build refactoring (for instanced) > > because I understand that 1) it is almost impossible for current tech > debt > > already accumulated and 2) to won't be welcomed by community because of > > indirect relationship to main project's goals. > > Considering other parts, please, note [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], > [8] > > and many many more issues that have no separate ticket. > > > > My point — such technical debt is overwhelming and will be never ever > > approached. > > That is one of the reasons why Ignite 3 being built from scratch, having > in > > mind all mistakes we've already made and lots of errors we will never do > > just because there would be no legacy basic for that. > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7190 > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7326 > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7672 > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8496 > > [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-9866 > > [6] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10600 > > [7] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10683 > > [8] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10696 > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 29 Sep 2021, at 14:14, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade? > >> > >> I’m not aware of the issues. > >> Can you, please, send a tickets or description of existing issues? > >> Anyway, it seems change of build tool can be done at any time we want > >> > >>> — issues related to run scripts? > >>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts? > >> > >> I’m not aware of those too. > >> Can you point to then, please? > >> > >>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too? > >> > >> Yes, from my point of view. > >> > >>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 14:03, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> > написал(а): > >>> > >>> And what about: > >>> — issues related to Maven build? possible Gradle upgrade? > >>> — issues related to run scripts? > >>> — issues related to release and delivery processes and scripts? > >>> > >>> Are they going to be addressed during Apache Ignite evolution too? > >>> > >>>> On 29 Sep 2021, at 13:47, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt > >>>>> addressing > >>>> > >>>> Yes, of course. > >>>> > >>>> My vision was the following (from the bird eye): > >>>> > >>>> - 2.20 - removals of LOCAL caches, MVCC and other abandoned features. > >>>> (User API doesn’t change). > >>>> - 2.30 - replace static XML configuration with the new dynamic > >>>> approach. > >>>> - 2.40 - replace H2 SQL engine with the Calcite > >>>> > >>>> etc. > >>>> > >>>> Versions depends on feature readiness. > >>>> > >>>> Anyway, I step back with the initial Ignite3 development, because, > don’t > >>>> want to interfere the progress. > >>>> > >>>> Respect to the developers who have courage to develop such complex > >>>> things from scratch. > >>>> > >>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 12:55, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> > >>>>> написал(а): > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> I believe that we should improve Ignite evolutionary and not > >>>>>> revolutionary. > >>>>>> First of all, change user API with the slow improvements step by > >>>>>> step. > >>>>> > >>>>> Nikolay, > >>>>> > >>>>> Does you vision of evolutionary improvement involve technical debt > >>>>> addressing? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 29 сент. 2021 г., в 11:43, Ilya Kasnacheev > >>>>>>> <ilya.kasnach...@gmail.com> написал(а): > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hello! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If we go the second route, we can call the field "Generation". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Generation: Ignite 2.x > >>>>>>> Generation: Ignite 3 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> (no new tickets should ever be filed for Ignite 1.x but if they > are, > >>>>>>> they > >>>>>>> should go to the first Generation) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regards. > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Ilya Kasnacheev > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ср, 29 сент. 2021 г. в 00:33, Valentin Kulichenko < > >>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> As for the original topic, we need to come to a solution. Let me > >>>>>>>> summarize > >>>>>>>> what we've discussed so far. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -PROBLEM- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ignite 3 is the next major version of Apache Ignite. It targets > the > >>>>>>>> same > >>>>>>>> use cases and provides a similar set of features as Ignite 2. At > the > >>>>>>>> same > >>>>>>>> time, Ignite 2 and Ignite 3 are *technically* separate projects. > >>>>>>>> They are > >>>>>>>> developed in different repositories (and therefore are based on > >>>>>>>> different > >>>>>>>> codebases) and implement different internal architectures. To > >>>>>>>> achieve a > >>>>>>>> more efficient development process, we need to create a clear > >>>>>>>> separation > >>>>>>>> between 2.x and 3.x within *development resources* (Jira and > >>>>>>>> Confluence). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1. Create a separate Jira project and Confluence space for Ignite > 3 > >>>>>>>> (initial suggestion). > >>>>>>>> 2. Add a *mandatory* field in Jira to identify whether a ticket > >>>>>>>> belongs to > >>>>>>>> 2.x or 3.x. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If we go with #2, there are still several things to figure out: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> - What is the name of this field? It needs to be intuitive to > anyone > >>>>>>>> who > >>>>>>>> joins the community. > >>>>>>>> - We need to make sure that Ignite 3 tickets are not mapped to 2.x > >>>>>>>> versions, and vice versa. Can we restrict this in Jira? Or we will > >>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> monitor this manually? > >>>>>>>> - What do we do with Confluence? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Nikolay, Ilya, Denis, and others who opposed the initial > suggestion: > >>>>>>>> if you > >>>>>>>> still prefer the second option, could you please address the > points > >>>>>>>> above? > >>>>>>>> I don't think it can be treated as an actual suggestion until we > >>>>>>>> cover > >>>>>>>> these details. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Let's discuss this until the end of the week. If there is no clear > >>>>>>>> picture > >>>>>>>> on option #2 by then, I suggest we go with #1. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -Val > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 11:22 PM Valentin Kulichenko < > >>>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Folks, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Versioning is a separate topic. We agreed on the current scheme > in > >>>>>>>>> March > >>>>>>>>> [1]. If someone thinks we need to change it, please create a new > >>>>>>>>> thread > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> present your suggestions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r17ebaad35ca2bd70e716e67683ae7fec9bd97372b6cc57a7e9c81f9d%40%3Cdev.ignite.apache.org%3E > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -Val > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 12:37 PM Petr Ivanov < > mr.wei...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Seems rational. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> But still 2.11.0 and 21.1.0 for the time being will look like > >>>>>>>>>> similar or > >>>>>>>>>> error in either version... > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2021, at 18:11, Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin >
