Sorry, If I missed something in the thread but in case of a separate JIRA project how are users supposed to create e.g. bug tickets? How can we make sure that users will not use a wrong JIRA project often?
2021-10-05 2:50 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > 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 >> > -- Best regards, Ivan Pavlukhin
